Delhi Court February 1986 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.
Surnedar Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. H.L. Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ178
G.C. Jaia, J.(1) This is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners herein are defendants in a suit which was filed by the respondent H. L. Sehgal ai Karta of M/s. Sehgal Industrial Works on January 17, 1975 for recovery of Rs. 13.000.00 .(2) According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff secured an order for the supply of 100 monkey cages from M/s Vita Private Ltd. Delhi. He entered into an agreement with the petitioners/defendants for the manufacture of thoic cages. Under the arrangement the plaintiff, inter alia, was to supply machines lying with him required for the manufacture of the cages. The machines of the value of Rs.24,000.00 were duly supplied. Before the work could be completed some disputes arose between the parties and ultimately it was settled that the defendants would supply him 100 cages at the rate of Rs. 295.00 per cage. Out of 100 cages 11 bad already been supplied and rest were to be supplied by specified dates...
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Nutan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ204
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a husband's appeal against a judgment of Shri R.P. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 21-7-1984.(2) By that order, the petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties, filed by the husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion had failed.(3) There arc many grounds on which the dissolution of marriage was sought. Inter alia, the grounds on which the dissolution of marriage was sought, were that that the wife had been responsible for making complaints or getting the complaints addressed to the employers of the husband ; and to persons in authority and also to the police. The District Judge has found that the complaint made to the police does not amount to cruelty on the husband.(4) Before me it is not disputed that these complaints which were made to the employers of the husband, i.e. to say Central Social Welfare Board, were made by the father of the wife, at her be best and at her instance. It is apparent that the father of the wife...
Jai Kishan and anr. Vs. Balbir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ331
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This first appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 17th September, 1981 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Delhi whereby the claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,600.00 . (2) Ashok Kumar deceased who was the son. of the claimants was going on a bicycle on 30th November, 1975 at about 4.00 p.m. when he was knocked down by a D.T.C. bui bearing No. DLP-1448 which came from Palla side on Delhi Palla Marg. It was alleged that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and as a result the accident took place whereby the deceased died. It is not necessary to go into further facts regarding the negligence because the learned Tribunal has found as a fact that the bus driver was negligent and that finding is not being assailed in this appeal. The learned Tribunal while deciding the question of compensation came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was a student of Xi class. According to the Tribuna...
Chander Vs. Sheela Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT86
D.K. Kapur, C.J.(1) This is a Regular Second Appeal directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge affirming the decree passed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of possession of house bearing No. 457, Rampura, Delhi. (2) The plaintiff, Shrimati Sheela Devi had sued for recovery of possession on the ground that she was the absolute owner of the house in question. The first defendant, Shri Chander, was the brother of the plaintiff, who claimed to be in permissive possession for the last seven or eight years. The other defendants in the Suit were the sub-tenants. The present appellant had taken the stand that the plot was purchased by the father in the name of his daughter who was nine years old at that time. The appellant was a Conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation and the plot was to serve as a security for the marriage of the daughter, i.e., the plaintiff. The plot was purchased benami in the name of the daughter. It was claimed that the appellan...
Kamla Devi and ors. Vs. Satya Parkash Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT151; 1988(14)DRJ237; 1986RLR391
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) This is a Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit for possession. Dr. Walaiti Ram was a tenant in shop No. 53, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. He also had a residential flat just above the shop. The two premises were independently let out at Rs. 23/13.00 Annas and Rs. 28/2.00 Annas per month but the tenancy was consolidated and the standard rent of the property was fixed at Rs. 50.25 np per month by the Court. In other words. Dr. Walaiti Ram was a tenant, in commercial-cum-residential property half of which being commercial and half of it being residential.(2) It appears from the facts found by the Court that the tenancy of Dr. Walaiti Ram was terminated by a notice to quit dated 22-7-1956. The case of the plaintiff was that Dr. Walaiti Ram became a statutory tenant. Later on Dr. Walaiti Ram died on 11th November, 1959. So, the stand of the plaintiffs was that the statutory tenant having died and there being no inheritable interest left in the property, the property ...
Shri Dev Uttam Vs. R.N. Mehrotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR386]; (1993)IIILLJ430Del
Sunanda Bhandare J. 1. The petitioner, a partner in a partnership firm which was running a printing press in the name and style of M/s Gautami Printers has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28th Feb., 1973 in I.D.Case No. 89 of 1972. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 18th May 1973 whereby the Labour Court refused to review the award dated 28th Feb., 1973 on the ground that it had no power to set aside its own ex parte order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reference was regarding a dispute between the workmen and the partnership firm. After the reference was made but before the hearing, the partnership firm was dissolved. The Labour Court, however, while deciding the reference held the partners individually responsible for payment of back wages and compensation. This, according to the petitioner, was done by the Labour Court ex parte without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before the La...
Satya NaraIn Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1290; 1986(11)DRJ7
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (For short 'the Act'). The detention order is dated 4th November, 1985 and it has been passed by Shri K. K. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods or abetting the smuggling of goods. 2. Earlier to this detention order the petitioner was detained by a similar order passed on 3rd June, 1985 on the same facts and grounds. That detention order was, however, revoked by the Government on receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board that there was no sufficient cause for the detention. The detention order, thereforee, was revoked by an order of the Central Government dated 22nd August, 1985. 3. The facts as disclosed in the grounds of detention are that on 24th January, 1985 the Agri...
Plycast (Delhi) P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle Xiii, N ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Del)298; [1986]159ITR750(Delhi); 1986RLR307
D.K. Kapur, C.J.1. This petition was heard after a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents. On considering the reply, we found that the petition could be disposed of without any further pleadings or affidavits. We accordingly heard both the learned counsels. We also found that the disposal of the petition could not be delayed. 2. We issue Rule D. B. and proceed to deal with the short point involved in the petition. The petitioner has challenged an order passed under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 23, 1982. The operative part of the order is that certain documents are retained in exercise of powers under section 131. The documents are as follows : 'Journal VouchersFile No. Period1. 1-10-1970 to 31-5-19812. 1-06-1981 to 30-9-1981Bank VouchersFile No. Period1. 1-10-1980 to 31-1-19812. 1-02-1981 to 30-3-19813. 1-05-1981 to 31-7-19814. 1-08-1981 to 30-9-1981.'3. The order was passed over three years ago. The point for decision is whether these documents can in...
S.M. Murray Vs. Fenner (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi427; 1986(11)DRJ12
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The plaintiff, an employee of defendant No. 1, filed this suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 2.78.500.00 on account of breach of service contract, and he also prayed for relief of injunction against all the defendants from dispossessing him from certain premises given to him by virtue of his employment.(2) There are four defendants. Defendant No. 1 is a limited company, and defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were its Directors during the relevant time. Claim of any relief against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 does not survive for consideration as facts would show. Nothing was also said by the plaintiff as to how any relief could be claimed against these defendants. The suit against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has to be dismissed. Reference to the defendant hereinafter would, thereforee, mean defendant No. 1 only.(3) The service agreement in question is dated 18-2-1981 and is between the plaintiff and the defendant (Ex. P-2). Though the plaintiff claimed that terms of...
M.S. Mathur Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ327
S.B. Wad, J. (1) In an accident which took place between car No. Pna 3666 and bus No. Dlp 2544 on 24-2-66 near Mandi House, the claimant was thrown out of the bus and suffered minor injuries to his chin and bids nose was bleeding. He was admitted in the hospital and was under treatment and observation from 24-2-66 to 2-3-66. However, the X'ray and other examination did not show any injury to brain or any other serious injury. The compensation is claimed mainly for the pain and suffering. The Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 470.00 for incidental expenses such as diet, nourishment, treatment, etc. It was held that the Insurance Company, viz. Jupiter General Insurance Co., which has now merged with Oriental Insurance Company, was liable to pay the compensation. In the cross objections filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, the liability is denied on merits. It is not open for the Insurance Company to challenge it under Section 96 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »