Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi771; 1974RLR335
H. L. Anand, J.(1) The question that arises in this appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the High Court Act') is as to its maintainability either under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act or under Section 10 of the High Court Act or under clause 10 of the letters Patent. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances : (2) The appellant had entered into a contract with the Regional Director (Food), Northern Region, New Delhi for handling/transporting work at Central Storage Depot, Shahjahanpur. The contract contained an arbitration clause and pursuant to certain disputes that arose between the parties, the same were referred to an Arbitrator in terms of the contract who, by an Award made on December 6, 1966 awarded a sum of Rs. 78.212.20 in favor of the appellant. On the same day, the Arbitrator issued a notice to the appellant and the Union of India, resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-09-1974
Reported in : [1974]33STC479(P& H)
Prem Chand Pandit, J.1. This order will dispose of two connected Sales Tax References Nos. 16 and 17 of 1972. The year of assessment is 1957-58. The first reference is under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Punjab Act, and the other is under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act.2. On 28th October, 1970, a Bench of this Court directed the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, to refer the following two questions of law for our opinion:(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the medicinal preparations given to the named patients on his own prescriptions by a registered medical practitioner amounts to a manufacture of medicine and pharmaceutical preparations?(2) Whether the petitioner is a 'dealer' within the provisions of the Punjab and Central Acts and the medicines prepared on his own prescriptions and delivered to his own patients who actually consult him amount to 'sale' within the meaning of the Punjab and the Central...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-08-1974
Reported in : AIR1974Cal336
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal to the High Court under the Patents Act, 1970. The order challenged in this appeal is regarding the application for Patent No. 133687 filed on November 19, 1971, by Raytheon company, of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, United States of America. It appears that the said company is a company organised and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America. The application related to Patent in respect of what is called 'Imaging System'. The system is described in the words of the application, inter alia, as follows:--'This invention concerns an imaging system suitable for use with and, more particularly, to radiation characterized by the high energy particles, particularly high energy photons such as in gamma radiation.'...........According to the present invention, there is provided an imaging system for providing an image of an object from which quanta of radiation are emitted sequentially,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1974
Reported in : 1975RLR12
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration, under section 27(a) read with section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter called 'the Act'). (2) The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act and that had been done on the 23rd of February, 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs bad been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged :- 'THATthe accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-20-1974
Reported in : AIR1975SC1146; (1975)1SCC166; [1975]2SCR774
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Calcutta or Cochin, for the urban people of India, the shocking scarcity of a roof to rest one's tired bones is an unhappy problem of social justice that compels control of rent and eviction laws. In the case now before us, attacking the Constitutionality of legislation handcuffing the landlord-proprietariat's right of eviction, the law has to be tested not merely by the cold print of Article 19(1)(f) but also by the public concern of Article 19(5) and the compassionate animus of Article 39, Parts III and IV of the Constitution together constitute a complex of promises the nation has to keep and the legislation challenged before us is in partial fulfilment of this Iryst with the people. These observations become necessary in limine since counsel for the respondents dismissed the concept of social justice as extraneous to an insightful understanding of the section invalidated by the High Court, while we think chat judicial conscience is not a mere matter of citat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-15-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Ori73
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment of R.N. Misra, J. in First Appeal No. 63 of 1964 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jey-pore in a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint 'A' schedule properties, mesne profits and cancellation of the Deed of Exchange Ext. A dated 26-3-1957.2. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are sons of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs constitute a joint family and are the owners in possession of the plaint A schedule lands measuring A.22.36 decs. situated in mouza Barijhola. Out of these Lands, they were in khas possession of plot Nos. 80, 87, 90 and 98 with an area of 6.11 acres. The remaining lands bearing plot Nos. 292. 29-3 and 294 were with the the Jeypore Sugar Company, Limited under possessory mortgage for a period of 12 years commencing from 11-5-1955. One Rajguru family who are not parties to this litigation own lands in village Pitamahal which was an inam village. That inam estate was abolished under the Ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Mad19
1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form, the issue involves a conflict of the case law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 = (AIR 1936 Mad 387), a Division Bench of Beasley C. J. and Stodart J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. baba Sah v. Purushottama Sah 47 Mad LJ 932 = (AIR 1925 Mad 167), Spencer C. J. and Srinivasa Aiyangar J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-13-1974
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas131(Cal)
Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 29, 1973, directing, inter alia, the respondents Pramotha Nath Mukherjee and Monoranjan Mukherjee to be added as parties to the Company Petition No. 398 of 1972 and granting leave to the said respondents to continue the said company petition and all proceedings thereunder, and further directing the original petitioner, Dilip Kumar Ganguli of the said Company Petition No. 398 of 1972, to be transposed to the category of respondents and all consequential amendments to be carried out in the cause title of the said company petition.2. The said company petition was filed on October 3, 1972, by the original petitioner, Dilip Kumar Ganguli, who was at all material times and still now is a shareholder of the Jalpaiguri Cinema Company Ltd., an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.3. The company was incorporated under the Indian Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-02-1974
Reported in : (1975)IILLJ19P& H
1. Dr. S. Herbert was employed at the Christian Hospital, Jagadhri, Ambala district, Ambala. On 31st August, 1970, be served the following demand notice on the Chairman. Punjab Synod Medical Board, Francis Newton Hospital, Ferozepur, respondent No. 1:Since I have not been taken on duty despite my personal protest and justified approaches it is, therefore, presumed that you have terminated my services without any notice and without assigning any reason.I am, therefore, constrained to serve upon you with this demand notice that I should be immediately reinstated, otherwise the Board will be responsible for further legal action.Five copies of this demand notice were also sent to the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Yamuna Nagar, who initiated conciliation proceedings which proved abortive. Consequently, the State of Haryana referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Haryana at Rohtak:Whether the termination of services of Dr. S. Herbert w...
Tag this Judgment!