Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-07-1976
Reported in : 12(1976)DLT330; 1976RLR585
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This case is an illustration of the law that the executing court may refuse to execute a decree only if the lack of jurisdiction of the court passing the decree or order is not only apparent on the face of the record but is also one of inherent jurisdiction, that is to say, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.(2) In an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord against the appellant/tenant an order under section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was passed by the Additional Controller on 23-8-1973. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 17-10-1973. In S.A.O. 286 of 1973 against the order of the Tribunal the appellant/ tenant made a statement admitting the claim of the respondent/landlord that the latter bona fide required the premises in question for his own residence and prayed that an order for eviction be passed against him but that he should be allowed time up to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-03-1976
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi652; 1977LabIC1353
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Here we are concerned with an arbitrator's award made under section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act). The validity of the award is being questioned on the ground that the award gives no reasons and a court is entitled to know the reasons of the arbitrator for arriving at a particular conclusion. (2) These are the facts. Jamiat-e-Ulernai Hind, an organisation of Muslim divines, has an official organ a daily newspaper in Urdu called the Aljamiat. Des Raj Wadhawan respondent No. 2 was working with them in the press as advertisement manager. He joined their service many years ago. The terms and conditions on which Wadhawan was working for them were settled from time to time by agreement between the parties. The last such agreement was executed on May 17, 1965. It came into force from June 1. 1965. (3) The management of the newspaper thought that Wadhawan was guilty of breaches of the agreement. On December 5, 1966, the management asked Wadhawan to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-22-1976
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas277(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. 1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,85,784.86 comprising of Rs. 1,27,373 as principal and Rs. 58,411.46 as interest by way of damages against the defendant bank in the following circumstances.2. A contract for the supply of ground-sheets was entered into on October 1, 1945, between the late Department of Supply of the Dominion of India and one Rati Lal Kameshwar Lal Bhatt of Bombay, who has been carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. R.K. Bhatt, by acceptance of tender No. SY/43488/SUP-I/R-2/1194. The quantity of the ground-sheets was reduced to 31,450 by letter dated April 21, 1947, the price whereof amounted to Rs. 2,34,892-3-0. The contractor M/s. R.K. Bhatt obtained payment of the full price payable in respect of 31,450 ground-sheets supplied by him under the said contract between April 28, 1947, and August 6, 1947.3. It is alleged in the plaint that one Mohinder Pal Singhal who was employed at the relevant time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-05-1976
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi149
S. Rangarajan (1) The appellant (Tirlochan Singh) has filed this appeal with the special leave of this Court against the acquittal of Chander Badan Singh (then S. I. of Police, who will hereafter be referred to as A.1) and Bishan Singh (Head Constable who will be referred to as A. 2) of the Kingsway Camp Police Station, Delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri M. K. Chawla) of offences punishable under sections 302/201 and 201/114 Indian Penal Code . The appellant's brother Inder Singh (deceased) was running his business at shop No. 39, Mall Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. According to the prosecution case A.I had information that a person would be coming across the Yamuna bridge with opium and that he could be apprehended. Accordingly he posted himself there and recovered opium (said to be 800 gms.) from one Kundan Singh at about 10 a.m. on 4-4-71. Interrogation disclosed that opium had been obtained from Inder Singh (deceased) 's shop; Kundan Singh said that he would point ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Delhi209; ILR1977Delhi659
T.P.S. Chamtla, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises some frequently recurring questions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It concerns four plots of land in Tigri, a village. near Delhi. The petitioner, Major S. K. Gupta, purchased these and other lands from the Delhi Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Limited. Title was conveyed to him by a sale deed executed on 29th Apr. 1971. As the lands are neither contiguous nor part of the same field, they are described in the correspondence preceding the sale as 'scattered land'.2. In Jan. 1972, Delhi Administration decided to acquire a large area of land in village Tigri, including the four plots owned by the petitioner. Three notifications, all dated 28th Feb. 1972, were published in the Delhi Gazette of 16th Mar. 1972, Their distinctive numbers are (iii), (iv) and (v) which are suffixed to the number of the file from which they emanate. The numerical order accords with the statutory legal sequence.3. Notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1976
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi224
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner, Avtar Singh, is anInspector in the Delhi Police. His case, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, when extricated from the massof confused details and irrelevancies which clutter the record, fallsunder four main heads. First, there is a question as to the date onwhich he ought to have been confirmed as Sub-Inspector, and theseniority to which he would thereby be entitled. The second questionis whether he was entitled to be considered for promotion to therank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1967. Thirdly, whetherthere were any circumstances existing which vitiated the consideration which he received for promotion to that rank in 1970 and 1972.And, fourthly, whether certain adverse remarks made in his annualconfidential report for the period 1969-70 ought to be expunged.I will deal with each of these questions in that order.Confirmation and Seniority(2) The petitioner started his career with the Delhi Police as a Const...
Tag this Judgment!