Delhi Court August 1982 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.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Vs. C.V.S. Mani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi548
Prakash Narain, C.J. (1) The import, manuFacture,distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics are, inter alia,regulated by the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafterreferred to as the Act. Sections 6, 12 and 33 of the Actempower the Central Government to frame rules in themanner and to the extent mentioned in the said sections.Such rules have been promulgated and are known as theDrags and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, hereinafter referred toas the Rules.(2) The Central Government by a notification No. O.S.R.27(E) dated 17/01/1981 made certain amendmentsto the Rules. The amended rules partly came into force on 1/08/1981 and partly on the date of the publication ofthe amended rules in the Official Gazette.' The challengebefore us is to these amendments, the contention being thatthe amendments contained in the notification dated 17/01/1981 are illegal, invalid, ultra virus and unenforceable.The consequent prayer is to quash the said notification andrestrain the Central Government and its off...
Straw Products Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT275(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The main question which arises for consideration in this writ petition concerns the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioners, inter alia, manufacture various kinds of papers and paper boards which are subject to excise under Tariff Item No. 17 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The paper so manufactured is sold by the petitioners to or through 32 wholesalers situate in various parts of the country. According to the petition, these wholesalers are independent persons and none of them have any shareholding in the petitioner-company. It is also averred that the petitioner-company, in turn, has no financial interest or shareholding in the business of the said wholesalers. 3. According to the petitioners, the goods are sold by them at prices which are fixed by the Government. The sale prices are published and a trade discount of 10% is given by the petition...
Jai Ram Dass and Co. Vs. R.S. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT51b; 1983(4)DRJ27; 1982RLR726
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal by the plaintiff challenges the order dated 7.9.81 of the Subordinate Judge 1st Glass, Delhi dismissing his applica- corporation fop setting aside the order of dismissal dated 3.9.81 and restoring the suit for trial.(2) Briefly the facts are that on 26.3.81 the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.l2,000.00 against the defendant. Summons for the settlement of issues was issued for 29.5.81 on which date written statement was filed and the suit was adjourned to 3.9.81 requiring the parties to appear in person and for filing replication, documents, admission denial and issues. On 3.9.81 when the suit was called none appeared and thereforee, the suit was directed to be called again. At 12.35 p.m. the suit was again called but there was no appearance on behalf of the parties. The suit was, thereforee, dismissed in default of appearance of both parties.(3) The plaintiff's counsel, on 3.9.81 supported by his own affidavit, filed an application for the rest...
N.P. Seshadri Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT55
M.L. Jain, J.(1) In April 1967, the Upsc advertised recruitment for six posts of Deputy Directors (Family Planning) in the Song & Drama Division of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. The posts were temporary but were likely to continue indefinitely. The petitioner applied. He was at that time an Assistant Information Officer in the Planning Commission. The Upsc selected six other persons. One more post of a Deputy Director was created in September, 1968 and the Commission was requested to recommend a suitable candidate for that post. The Commission recommended the petitioner and he joined as Deputy Director on 15-11-1968. He was placed on trial for a period of two years. That period expired on 14-11-1970. The Head of the Department was Col. H.P. Gupte. (2) The petitioner alleges that in 1969, he was put in charge of coordination, discipline and vigilance. While going through the files relating to vigilance, he detected many irregularities committed by the said Col. Gupte. The ...
Ram Murti Vs. Bhola Nath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT426
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The tenant, in his second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd August, 1977 affirming on appeal the order of the Additional Controller dated 8th March, 1976 directing his eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act. (2) Briefly the facts are that on 19th December, 1968 Bhola Nath, respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant and one Basant Lal under Section 14(l)(a)(b) of the Act alleging that the appellant was his tenant in quarter No. 16137 Ab, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on monthly rent of Rs. 80 besides other charges, that he in spite of a notice dated 8th October, 1968 demanding arrears of rent for the period from 1st June, 1961, failed to pay the same and that he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of two rooms of the tenancy premises to Basant Lal without obtaining his consent. The appellant in...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC30; 1983(12)ELT24(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the connected petitions raise an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of the notifications granting excise duty relief in respect of selected commodities to the extent indicated therein, and as to whether the relief in excise duty is intended to cover in its scope, both the basic duty of excise livable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the special/additional/auxiliary duty of excise livable under the Special Acts or Finance Acts. 2. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is apposite to refer to relevant statutory provisions first. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to central duties of excise on goods manufactured or produced in certain parts of India and to salt. Section 2(f) defines manufacture and includes any process incidental or ancillary to the complet...
Tek Chand and ors. Vs. Development Commissioner, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT1
M.L. Jain, J.(1) In Revla Khanpur, Delhi, 1290 Bighas5 bids was of pasture land was lying vacant. The Gram Panchayat by its resolution dated 6-3-1973 made some allotment of land to 85 persons. This resolution could not be given effect to because the necessary permission from the Development Commissioner was not obtained. The Panchayat thereupon passed another resolution on 10-7-1973 by which 260 Bighas and 16 bids was of land was allotted to 55 persons, one acre each, at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per acre for five years. By this writ petition filed on 13-11-1973 these allotments were challenged by four persons) out of whom Chhotto at his request was deleted on 14-7-1982 from the array of the petitioners, leaving Tek Chand, Bale Ram and Bharat Singh as petitioners. (2) The first contention of Mr. 0.P. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that under Sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (herein the Act), the Gaon Sabha alone has the power to admit any...
Girdhari Lal Bhat Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT487
D.B. Khanna, J.(1) This is a petition moved under Section 276/279read with the first proviso to Section 273 for grant of letters of Administrationwith respect to the estate of late Shri Maha Nand Bhat who had died on12-5-1979 in Delhi. The applicant is the deceased's eldest son, namely,Girdhari Lal Bhat. Respondent No. 3 is the daughter of the deceased, whilerespondents Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of the petitioner. They have filedreply to the effect that they have no objection to the grant of letters ofAdministration in petitioner's favor. Respondent No. 2 Triloki Nath is theanother son of the deceased, who has been disinherited by the deceased withregard to his self acquired property. He has not appeared to contest THE petition.(2) A notice for public was issued in the newspapers. None hasappeared to contest the petition.(3) EX. 'A' is the registered Will dated 6-5-1971 which late Shri MahaNand Bhat executed in Delhi. It is in Urdu, and its English translation hasbeen filed on record. ...
D.S. Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi434; 22(1982)DLT41
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a case of a teacher who has been denied extension of service, though he is a state awardee. The petitioner D. S. Sharma was the principal of a Government Higher Secondary School in 1970. He is a B.A.B.T. He had put in 27 years service in the education department of the respondent Delhi Administration. In 1966 the Delhi Administration instituted state awards on the model of national awards for teachers. This was a scheme of honouring the teachers for their meritorious and commendable services. A teacher who had rendered 20 years of distinguished service in the field of education could be selected for the state award. The avowed object was to honour the teachers and to raise their status. The awards are a veritable roll call of honour. (2) On 24th May, 1971 a state award was given to the petitioner for the year 1970 'in recognition of his distinguished service rendered in the field of education'. In the citation it was said about him that 'he possesses...
inder SaIn Gupta and anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT389
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th February, 1975 affirming on appeal the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30th July, 1971 passing an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 8. (2) Briefly the facts are that on 17th August, 1968 Makhan LaI Jain, predecessor of Sushil Kumar, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to 'the landlord') filed a petition for eviction of his tenant, Hira Lal Rustogi (predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 8), Inder Sain Gupta (appellant No. 1) M/s. Indra Printing Press, (appellant No. 2) alleging that one garage bearing Municipal No. 4711 forming part of No. 21, Daya Nand Road, Daryaganj, Delhi was let to Hira Lal Rustagi in 1945, that in April, 1968 the tenant sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »