Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1979
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-1979
Reported in : 1980CriLJ489
ORDERD.R. Khanna, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 19-8-1977 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the conviction of Kesho Ram petitioner, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 31-1-1976, was maintained. The sentence of 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months as awarded by the trial court, was, however, reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Kesho Ram petitioner is a milk vendor and is operating his business from shop No. 26, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. On 29-5-1974, at about 7.30 A. M. Food Inspector P. N. Ralhan visited the shop and found the petitioner selling milk. After disclosing his identity and giving notice to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk for analysis out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-09-1979
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT118
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) The revision petition filed by the landlord from the order of the Rent Controller raises one question. It is about the meaning of the term 'dwelling house' as used in the provision to Section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act).(2) The undisputed facts of this case are these. Nanak Ghand Gupta, Petitioner, is the landlord of house No, 6349, Block No. 7, Gali No. 1 in Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondent Ish Kumar Verma, is his tenant in a portion of this house. One room was let to him on November 11, 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 35.00 . He was also given the right to use the W.G. and bath in common with the landlord. (3) The landlord is a government servant. He was living in this house till 1974. He had three rooms in his possession. On August 9, 1974 he was allotted Government quarter No. N/552, Sector 8, in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. When he shifted he kept out of the three rooms which were with him two rooms in his possession. And in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi142; 17(1980)DLT234; 1980(1)DRJ11
H.L. Anand, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the order of eviction. The principal question that it raised was as to the liability of the tenant to eviction merely on the ground that the premises at present available to owners, though otherwise sufficient for their requirements having regard to the extent of the accommodation and of the family, was nevertheless insufficient, because on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, a separate unit in the premises could not be provided for a branch of the family. Certain subsequent event have to an extent changed the context in which the order was made and have thrown up an additional problem as to their effect and the course to be followed in the changed circumstances.2. The property, in which the premises in dispute is situated is jointly owned by the mother, principal of a government school and her two sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-16-1979
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi1082
O.N. Vohra, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 19, 1973 of Shri Prem Sagar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi whereby the Principal, Vocational Training College and Surjit Malhan, Secretary of the institution, hereinafter referred to as respondents, were acquired of the charge under Section' 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. (2) Briefly, the facts are that Ramesh Chandra, Sectional Officer of the Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority', inspected building No. J-30, New Delhi South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, and found that Vocational Training College for Women was being run on the ground floor while the first floor was being used as hostel. The respondents, who were in charge of the institution and persons responsible to conduct the affairs thereof, were directed to vacate the non-conforming user of the building on the ground that the building fell within the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-27-1979
Reported in : 16(1979)DLT225
(1) This is tenant's second.appeal against the order of the Rent controller as affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal ordering the eviction of the appellant.(2) An eviction application was brought on the ground of clause (d) of proviso to Section 14(1) namely that the tenant had not resided in the premises for a period of six months immediately before the day of filing of the eviction petition. The appellant is a, tenant in the premises since 1942. It appears that some time in 1969 an eviction petition had been brought .against the appellant, which I am told is still pending We are however not c.oncerned with that in these proceedings. This application was filed on 17.7.1973, on the allegation that for the last six months neither the appellant nor-his members of the family resized in the. premisesin dispute. Both the Rent Control and the Rent Control Tribunal have found in favor of the respondent landlord and have passed an order for eviction. The appellant being aggrieved has filed thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-09-1979
Reported in : 16(1979)DLT220
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) Two principles fundamental to domestic inquiries are competitive for recograition and application to the facts of this case. The first plinciple is that if the findings arrived at after the domestic inquiry are based on evidence which has probative value, then there can be no judicial review of these findings on merits and they are final. The second one is that no material or evidence produced against the person against whom the inquiry is held can form the basis of a finding against him unless, he had an opportunity of rebutting such material or evidence. If the evidence consists of the statement of a witness, then the witness should be made available for being cross-examined. If he is not so made available, his statement which is not tested by cross examination, cannot be relied upon to sustain an adverse finding in the inquiry. (2) Respondent No. 2, Mohinder Singh, was employed as a Conductor on a bus belonging to the appellant, Delhi Transport Corporation O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-1979
Reported in : 1993(12)ELT349(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises the question of scope and true interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated June 16, 1976 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 granting excise duty relief in respect of selected commodities to the extent of 25 per cent of duty payable on goods produced in excess of production in a selected base year.2. Indian Aluminum Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) petitioner No. 1 is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a share holder of the Company and is a citizen of India. The Company carries on the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and selling Aluminum and its allied products. For the purpose of the said business the company owns three Aluminum smelting plants at Hirakund in the State of Orissa, at Alupuram in the State of Kerala and at Belgaum in the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-04-1979
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi1; 1979LabIC1294; (1980)ILLJ463Del
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The relevant facts of this case are few but they give rise to some questions of law which are important and yet not covered by judicial decisions. Hence the reference to the Full Bench. Initial Appointment Of Respondent NO. 6 And His Subsequent Appointment As INCOME-TAX Officer, Class Ii (2) The Federal Public Service Commission held a combined competitive examination in 1945 to as many as eight Central Services including (1) Indian Audit and Accounts Services, (2) Military Accounts Department, and (3) The Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service. Shri Ranbir Chandra, respondent No. 6 Qualified in this examination and was appointed to the Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department on the 10th January, 1947 by a gazette notification dated 22nd February, 1947. He was also made to execute a contract of service which was to continue initially for three years and subsequently on like terms and conditions until terminated by three months' notice. In 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-1979
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1290; ILR1979Delhi110
O.N. Vohra, J.(1) This is an appeal by Bijinder Singh (19), son of Prahlad Singh, agriculturist, resident of village Bigheypur, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for having murdered Surajpal Singh by judgment dated August 21, 1976 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. (2) Briefly, the facts are these. Surajpal Singh, a young boy of 18, belonging to village Meerpur, District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, was carrying on dairy business in servant quarters of bungalow No. 12, Mandir Marg, Delhi Cantt. allotted to Capt. Bhag Singh (Public Witness 18). Mahender Singh (Public Witness 19), younger brother of Surajpal Singh, who was studying in those days, came to Delhi to spend his summer vacation. He left for his village on July 24, 1975 but again came on August 4, 1975 and found appellant instead. On being asked about Surajpal Singh, the appellant informed that Surajpal Singh had gone to the v...
Tag this Judgment!