Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi278
ORDER1. Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc. of milk and milk products as provided in S. 3 of the Act. The Central Government as provided in S. 9can also delegate its power to make orders under S. 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under S. 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has been issuing various orders for main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : 1993(25)DRJ514
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc of milk and milk products as provided in Section 3 of the Act The Central Government as provided in Section 5 can also delegate its power to make orders under Section 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. .In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under Section 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-24-1993
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. Since common question of law and facts arises for determination in both the civil revisions, this judgment is meant to dispose of both of them by a common judgment, which otherwise have arisen out of separate proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent against deceased Ruli Ram, tenant-petitioner, who is now represented byhis legal representatives. 2. The respondent-landlord on 26th May, 1984, filed a petition seeking eviction of tenant Ruli Ram from a residential flat located above shops Nos. 80/81. The Mall, Shimla, on the ground that the tenant had got building 'Oak Over Villa', Jakhu in his own right wherein he has acquired vacant possession of a residential set, which has more accommodation than the accommodation in question on the Mall and that the said tenant has rendered himself liable for eviction. The petition was contested by the tenant, who set up a plea that the tenancy was a composite one with that of shop No. 81, The Mall, Shimla. While passin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-25-1993
Reported in : AIR1993SC1469; 1993CriLJ1801; 1993(3)Crimes411(SC); JT1993(2)SC165; 1993(1)SCALE705; 1993Supp(3)SCC449
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 9th November 1984 whereby the High Court set aside the order of acquittal dated 11th February 1982 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions judge, Belgaum in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1981 and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the murder of the Devappa Dharmanna Aski (in short Devappa) of Harugeri on 27th June, 1981.2. Briefly the prosecution case was that there was a common well for irrigating the land of the deceased Devappa accused/appellant and another person (PW. 11). The deceased and PW. 11 had 50% share in the water of the well and the accused had the other 50%. Earlier the water from the well was utilised by all three on these turn and the water was drawn from the well with the help of a diesel pump installed by the deceased. About a year or two before the incident the accused had installed an electric pump-set. Whenever the deceased would put on hi...
Tag this Judgment!