Delhi Court July 1983 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.
Regional Provident Fund Commission Vs. Amar Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT371; 1984LabIC1333
Prahash Narain, C.J.(1) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, as applicable to this court, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who accepting the petition of the respondents, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, made the rule absolute. The decision of the appellant dated April 21, 1971, communicated to the respondents by appellant's letter of June 1 1, 1971 was quashed and the appellant was also directed to refund the employer's contribution deposited with the appellant by the respondents for the period July 1965 to December, 1966. (2) As noticed by our learned brother) H.L. Anand,J. the short question arising in the case was the interpretation of Sub--section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1,952. The circumstances leading to the filing of the petition may briefly be noted. (3) The respondents' establishment was, admittedly, covered by the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Scheme framed there under with effect ...
Hari Kumar Lekhi Vs. Suman Lata
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ37
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 181-1974. A male child was born to them on 9-10-1974. It is in evidence that the child is suffering from some sickness. On 18-10-1975, the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act). The husband also filed a similar petition on 19-11-1975. The wife's petition was dismissed but that of the husband was decreed on 21-9-1976. The wife came in appeal to the High Court where reconciliation took place on 17-5-1977. The husband carried the wife with him and two days were given to them to report how they were pulling on. On 19-5-1977 the counsel for the parties reported that the compromise has come into effect and there was resumption of cohabitation. However, the wife left the house of the husband on 9 6-1977 The husband then filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Acton the ground of desertion on 28-1-1981. The petition was dismissed by the l...
J. Malik Vs. the Cantonment Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT204; 1983(5)DRJ298; 1983RLR656
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellant was employed as a doctor with the Delhi Cantonment Board and was in occupation of the disputed premises belonging to the said Board. She retired in 1971 but did not vacate the premises. The Board filed an eviction application which was allowed by the Addl. Controller on 16-2 1982. Her appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 10-1-1983. Hence, this second appeal.(2) The only point raised in this appeal is whether the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies to the premises in question or whether the Public.. Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, applies to them. Under the definition given in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 'public premises' exclude premises belonging to a local authority. The question, thereforee, that falls for consideration is whether the Cantonment Board is a local authority. According to clause (31) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, local authority m...
Yoginder Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT429; 1983(5)DRJ357; 1984LabIC542
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) The future of these petitioners hangs In the balance. They are 23 Young men of about 25 years of age. They are 'strong and well proportioned youths'. They have chosen to become constables in the Delhi Police Department. They appeared at a test in October 1981. They first appeared at a physical test. After qualifying at the Physical test they were allowed to appear in the written test. At the written test they were declared successful. After this an order was issued to petitioner No. I, Yoginder Pal Singh, the petitioner No. 2, Yash Pal Singh, in identical terms : Memo 'YOU are informed that the Lt. Governor Delhi has accorded sanction for relaxation for your recruitment for a post of Constable in Delhi Police. thereforee, you deposit your original educational certificates and declaration forms, given to you after medical examination duly filled in by you by date 28-5-1982 in this office, so that you are called for training with effect from 15-6-1982.' in all there ...
Crown Spinning and Manufacturing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1165DTri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows. During the period from 17-3-72 to 23-7-72, the appellants were working under the special procedure, commonly known as the compounded levy scheme, prescribed in Rule 96W of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with notification No.62/72-C.E., dated 17-3-72, in respect of the specified type of mixed yarn containing more than 40% by weight of cotton which they were manufacturing and using captively for making fabrics. Such yarn was classifiable under item 18E of the Central Excise Tariff. Though the normal rate of duty for such yarn was in terms of so many rupees per kilogram, the compounded levy scheme fixed a sum in terms of so many paise per square metre of the fabric made from such yarn. Such sum was in lieu of the normal duty liability on yarn and was payable at the time of clearance of the fabrics. For the aforesaid type of yarn, this compounded levy scheme stood withdrawn on 24-7-72 and the normal duty at the rates specified in not...
Bharat Krishak Samaj Vs. N.L. Kakkar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT426
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a petition by Bharat Krishak Samaj (Farmers Forum India) impugning the order of the labour court dated 4-7-1980, (2) These are the facts. Respondent No. 3, Prithi Singh is the workman. He was working as a driver with the management of Bharat Krishak Samaj from 1960 to 1976. In 1976 his services were terminated by the Samaj. So he raised an industrial dispute. The Delhi Administration under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act) referred it to the labour court. (3) Contemporaneously he made an application under section 33C of the Act alleging that he did four hours extra work beyond his normal working hours and he was not paid overtime wages over this period of 16 years. He claimed over time wages at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per day, for working four how a day. The total amount he claimed was Rs. 36,795.00. (4) Both the claims were contested by the Samaj before the Labour Court. The labour court held that the workman's services were illegally...
Chameli Wati and anr. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi277; 24(1983)DLT272
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge by which he has awarded under the Motor Vehicle Act an amount of Rs. 38,522.00 by way of compensation with interest at 6 per cent till realisation with costs to the appellants for the death of their son Ramesh Ghander. (2) The accident took place on 25-8-1970. The bus was being driven by Ajit Singh, Driver. The bus belonged to the D.T.G, respondent No. 2. It was stated that the Driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently and the accident took place because of the fault of the Driver. The Trial Court as well as the learned single Judge have held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, Driver, which resulted in the death of Ramesh Ghand. This being a finding of fact there is no occasion to interfere with it in this appeal and the same is affirmed. (3) The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of his accident. The claim was put in by his father and moth...
Panchshila Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Munic ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT285
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the Punjab High Court, as applicable to this court, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court who disposed of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the appellants, challenging certain demands made by the first respondent prior to its taking over the various services in the residential colony developed by the first appellant. (2) A mandamus was sought by the appellants against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 1, directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take over the services and perform all the functions under Section 42 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 in the residential colony developed by the petitioners, known as Panchshila Park. Respondent No. I was willing to take over the various services provided the appellants either rectified or paid for the deficiencies in the various services provided in the colony. Aggrieved,...
Testeels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1676TriDel
1. The short point, involved in this case is whether Zinc ash, dust and dross were, during the period from 1975-76 to 1980-81, classifiable under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, as held by the Collector, or under item 26B (1) thereof, as urged by the appellants.2. During the hearing of this appeal today, the appellants stated that zinc ash, dust and dross arose in their factory out of duty paid zinc unwrought during the process of galvanisation of transmission line towers, that zinc dross and ashes were specifically mentioned in item 26B (1) of the Tariff as included in the category of zinc unwrought and so could not be consigned to the residuary item 68, that this was a case of zinc unwrought coming out of duty paid zinc unwrought and hence there could be no further duty liability on the appellants. For this, they relied on this Tribunal's earlier order in the case of M/s Chemitech Industries 1983 ELT. 551 and added that in terms of a notification also zinc unwrought manufactur...
Ram Nath Vs. Finance Commissioner, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi178; 25(1984)DLT20; 1983RLR739
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugning the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 10-5-1982. (2) These are the facts. Under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (the Act), repartition took place in village Sanoth in the year 1976. Subsequently by orders dated 31-1-1981 and 10-3-1981 the Consolidation Officer withdrew the land from Kilas Nos. 47/12 (4 bighas-11 bis.) and 47/19 (2 bighas-7 bis.) situated in this revenue estate from the petitioner Ram Nath. First he allotted the land as withdrawn from Ram Nath to Gao Sabha, and subsequently to Ram Saroop, respondent No. 2 herein, after taking it away from the Gaon Sabha. This is a straight fight between the petitioner Ram Nath and the respondent Ram Saroop. I will refer to them by name now. (3) The action of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Ram Nath before the Financial Commissioner in 1982 by means of a revision petition under section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »