Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983(4)DRJ35; 1982RLR813
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The petitioner, who was summoned as a witness challenge the order dated 25th May, 1982 of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi issuing non-bailable warrant against her for appearance in court and also show cause notice to her surety. Briefly the facts are that originally Smt. Rukmani Devi the petitioner filed the suit for possession and mesne profits on 18th May, 1970 against Hari Parkash defendant-respondent No 2 alleging that she was owner of property No : 2962, Kucha Maidas Bazar, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi and the defendant was in illegal possession of a room on second floor of the said property. The defendant pleaded that he was tenant under her in the said room on second floor. Smf. Rukmani Devi petitioner sold the property on 5th September, 1970 to Smt. Shanti Aggarwal. On an application being made the name of Smt. Shanti Aggarwal (resoon- dent No. 1) was substituted as plaintiff in place of the petitioner Smt. Rukmani Devi.(2) On 21st March, 1977 the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi35
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) By this petition the petitioner, Daulat Ram Public Charitable Trust (Trust) challenges the requisitioning order dated 17-11-1970 passed by the competent authority under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1952 (the Act). (2) These are the facts : Building No. 849 situated at Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is owned by the Trust. On March Ii, 1970 the Collector issued a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act to the Trust requiring it to show- cause why property be not requisitioned for a public purpose, namely, for housing hospial of the Delhi Administration. The notice was withdrawn. (3) A similar notice was again issued on 18th September, 1970 intimating that the property is needed for a public purpose, namely, for housing a hospital of Delhi Administration. The Trust filed objections to the showcause notice. The abjections were dismissed. The competent authority on 17-11-70 ordered the Trust to surrender or deliver possession to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi142
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) The controversy which arises for determination as an interim measure at this stage is whether the plaintiff was appointed as a commission-agent simplicities for the sale of sarees' belonging to defendant No. 1 and ready-made garments of defendant No. 2, as asserted by the plaintiff, or the real relationship between the parties was that the two defendants were admitted as tenants by the plaintiff in a portions of the shop bearing No. 7-F. Connaught Place, New Delhi. (2) The plaintiff firm is a tenant of the said shop at a rent of about Rs. 200 per month from mid-forties. It had been carrying on its wine business in the shop but the same ended in about 1977 as a result of certain prohibition measures introduced by the Government. At present the plaintiff is carrying on some export business in handicrafts, some items of which are displayed in a portion of the shop. The plaintiff's office for this business is located on a megannine plaintiffs office for this business is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 23(1983)DLT62; ILR1983Delhi45
Leila Seth, J.(1) This is a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus as also for quashing the order of detention dated 28th June, 1982. (2) Subsequently, on '31st May 1982, the Commissioner of Police passed another detention order under N.S.A. 1980. This order was not approved by the Administrator and the detention order was revoked on 10th June 1982, without being executed. (3) Thereafter, on 28th June, 1982, the impugned detention order was passed. It was passed by Mr. S. Lal, the Commissioner of Police under section 3(2), of the N.S.A. 1980. It was, executed on the same date. The Administrator approved of it on 8th July 1982 under section 3(4) of N.S.A. 1980. The-Advisory Board's approval was forthcoming on 2nd/4th August 1982. The Administrator then confirmed the detention under section 12(1) on 9th August 1982. Under section 13 of N.S.A. 1980 he directed that the detenu be detained for a period of twelve months from 28th June, 1982. (4) Mr. R. K. Jain appearing for the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi104; 23(1982)DLT239; 1983RLR43
R. Sachar, J. (1) This is a rather unhappy case of the result of the various changes (according to some people) of haphazard and not very well thought out period of schooling that is inflicted on the children. (2) Previously there used to be 11+3 for getting a B.A. degree. The petitioner is one of those who got her B.A. pass and secured 56'5% marks. That was about a decade back. (3) Some years back the academicians thought that 11+3 did not suit and they switched over to 10+2+3 ; the result is that to get a B.A. degree one has to spend 15 years as compared to 14 years studies by the petitioner. Evidently, the problems of Post Graduate Admission cropped up for the purpose of M.A. classes as well as Law classes. (4) The Delhi University which is running the law courses had this matter considered by the Law Admission Committee under ordinance No. 2 of the University Calendar. After looking into the various matters it took the decision that those who have passed B.A. under 11+3 and want ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi446
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner Kartar Singh was enlisted as a Constable on 15-2-1951 and was confirmed on 13-9-1954. He was promoted as Constable selection grade on three years probation on 1-12-1969. He passed lower school course for promotion to the rank of Head Constable in March, 1962, and was promoted officiating Head Constable on 15-8-1963. He was arrested in the Police agitation and placed under suspension on 15-4-1967 and cases under sections 18811471353 Indian Penal Code , 7/33/32 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 3133166 Police Restriction of Rights Act, section 29, of the Police Act, section 322122 of Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, section 7 of the Essential Services Maintenance Order, were instituted against him. But upon tendering written apology, the cases were withdrawn and he was reinstated with effect from 22-12- 1970 by an order of 28-1-1971. The period of supension from 15-4-1967 to 21-12-1970 was treated as duty for purposes of leave, pension, increment and sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982CriLJ751; 23(1983)DLT50
Leila Seth, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in case No. 69 of 1979 dated 29th January, 1980 convicting the five appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 324/149 Indian Penal Code. On 30th January, 1980, each of the appel- lants was directed to pay Rs. 100.00 under Section 5B of the Probation of Offenders Act as costs of the proceedings ; and be released on probation on furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs. 2,000.00 to ensure for a period of two years, to keep the peace. (2) This case arises out of a family dispute with regard to irrigation of fields in village Bajitpur. (3) The five appellants are Sardar Singh alias Sardare and his four sons, Om Prakash, Saheb Singh, Raj Kumar and Mange. The complainant is one Krishan Kumar. He is the son of Banwari. Sardare and Banwari are brothers and the sons of Paitu. The others who figure in this case and a. connected case are Ishwar and Daya Nand who are also the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi641; 1983RLR296; 1983(1)SLJ465(Delhi)
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner was born on 18-1-1917. He joined Government service as Work Charged Draftsman on 6-10-1939 in the Civil establishment of the Army. He continued to rise and on 23-11-1963 rose to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Gazetted Classsi) of 30-10-1972 he was given notice under clause (h) of Regulation 459 of the Civil Service Regulations retiring him from service with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of service of the notice. He was thus compulsorily retired. (2) By this writ petition the petitioner prays that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 30-10-1972 be quashed and he should be allowed to continue in service up to the age of 58 years. (3) The Civil Service Regulations define the conditions of service in the civil departments of the Army Establishments. Regulation 459 provides that every Government servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of 58 years. But the appropriate authority, if it is of opin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi934; 1982RLR768
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee under Section 3 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was constituted last time in January, 1980. It consisted of forty six selected members and none co-opted members. Jathedar Santokh Singh, a co-opted member of the Committee died on 21st December, 1981. Shri Sohan Singh Sandhu, an elected member of the committee also died on 21st December, 1981. The vacancy caused by the death of Shri Sohan Singh Sandhu, an elected member, has not been filled up so far in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed. The vacancy which occurred on account of death of Jathedar Santokh Singh, a co-opted member was to be filled up by co-option of a new member in a meeting of the committee to be held on 16th June. 1982. The plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for injunction on 15th June, 1982 along with an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1984]146ITR66(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, C.J. 1. The question of law referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench'B'), reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law having regard to the provisions of section 23 of the Act to adopt the actual rent received as the annual letting value of the property ignoring the annual letting value determined by the municipal authorities 2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessed is said to be the owner of property at 16, Ring Raod, Lajpat Nagar-IV), New Delhi. This property was let out to the Singapore Embassy at Rs. 6000 p.m from June 15, 1967. Rent in advance for 8 12 months was received by the assessed amounting to Rs. 51,000. On February 9,1968, during the accounting year, the tenant wrote to the assessed that since the front part of the front lawn had been reclaimed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation and the land available to the tenant had been reduc...
Tag this Judgment!