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 : May-27-1976
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi97
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This is a suit for partition of properties andhas arisen in the following circumstances.The plaintiff, Dr. Kewal Krishan Mayor, and defendant No. 1,Shri Kailash Chand Mayor, are the sons of late L. Bal Mukand whowas the son of Shri Dina Nath. The said L. Bal Mukand, besides theplaintiff and defendant No. 1, had one son named Shri Brahm Duttwho died during the life time of L. Bal Mukand. L. Bal Mukand hadtwo daughters, defendant No. 2 Smt. Brahm Wad Sood and defendantNo. 3 Smt. Raj Kumari Dhanda. Shri Brahm Dutt who died duringthe life time of L. Bal Mukand, left behind his son Shri Anil Mayor,defendant No. 4, and a daughter Smt. Neelam Sood, defendant No. 5and a widow Smt. Parkash Mayor, defendant No. 6. Smt. Lal Deviwas the wife of L. Bal Mukand and the mother of the plaintiff anddefendant No. 1 Smt. Lal Devi died on 9th of November, 1965.L. Bal Mukand died at Delhi on 27th of June, 1973. (2) The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint of the suit is thatL. Bal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-1976
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi691
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) The Facts The appellant was a member of the armed forces. At very early stage he chose a military career for himself in life. He was recruited as a boy in the army on July 27. 1948. On May 13, 1963, he was commissioned in the army medical corps as a second lieutenant. In due course of time he rose to the rank of a captain. In that position he was confirmed on May 13, 1970. (2) On November 11, 1968, the appellant was working in the post of an assistant administrative officer in the Armed Forces Medical College at Pune. The college has two divisions. One consists of the troops, that is. the defense personnel. The other is a civilian establishment. The appellant was working in the civilian establishment of the college which was under his charge. There were certain allegations of mismanagement against him. He was charged with having made payments to certain fictitious persons and making false entries in the monthly pay bills with an intent to defraud the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-02-1976
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi745
H.L. Anand (1) This judgment will dispose of certain preliminary issues arising in suits No. 105/70, 429/71 and 35/71, which were consolidated. 3 HCD/76-5 (2) It appears that until his death on June 2, 1946 Ishwar Dass Kalra had been carrying on business in Delhi in the name and style of Ishwar Dass Kaira & Sons and the business consisted of a restaurant known as Esplanade Bar & Restaurant which also had an L4 license. He was survived by three sons, Sudershan Kumar Kaira, Kishan Lal Kaira and Hans Raj Kaira. Since the death of the father there has been considerable expansion of the business which has been carried on in the name and style of Esplanade Bar & Restaurant as indeed in a number of other names and styles, such as, Kishan Lal Wine Merchant, Kishan Lal & Co. Private Ltd. and Kishan Lal Wine Merchants Private Ltd., for part of the period in the status of a joint Hindu family consisting of the three brothers and partly in the form of a partnership of which the three brothers were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-1976
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas774(Delhi); ILR1976Delhi291
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These two conjoint appeals from the order of the learned company judge (D. K. Kapur J.) both dated April 26, 1976, mainly turn upon the meaning and interpretation of two sections of the Companies Act, 1956 -sections 391 and 392. The facts (2) First the facts. Delhi Flour Mills Company Limited (DPM) was the holding company, It had a subsidiary. The subsidiary company is Indian Hardware Industries Limited (IHI). Now for some years past it has stopped working. (3) Ihi was incorporated in 1951 with a share capital of Rs. 8 lakhs. It floated 80,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Since its formation 44,000 shares were held by the holding company, namely, DFM. They were the largest single share-holder having in their hands 55 per cent of the shares of IHI. The appellant K. P. Jain and his family hold 31,000 shares. That comes to 38.5 per cent of the entire holdings. 5000 shares are held by an outsider. (4) Ihi was engaged in the manufacture of builders hardware, lt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-1976
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi321; 13(1977)DLT279b; 1976RLR487
1. This is a wife's appeal from the decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Additional District Judge on January 30, 1974, against her.2. The appellant Sushil Kumar was married to the respondent Prem Kumar on February 25, 1970. The husband is 32 years of age. Nearly same is the age of the wife. Both of them are lower division clerks. They are getting about Rs - 400/- or Rs. 450/- per month as pay.3. The husband and wife lived together till July 15, 19,70. This is admitted on all hands. The case of the husband is that on July 16, 19,70, the wife left his house in the morning to join her duties at the office. She did not come back to his house in the evening. Thereafter she never came back to the matrimonial home.4. At the time the wife left the house on July 16, 1970, she was in the family way. In February 1971 when the husband and wife were living apart a daughter was born to the wife. That girl today is five years of age. She is living with her mother. 5. On July 13,197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-15-1976
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi389
M. S. Joshi, J. (1) Wippermann Jr Gmbh, a West Germany Company has instituted a suit (No. 471 of 1976) against Wipperdrive Engineering, a Bombay concern for damages and injunction. In that suit an application has been filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayers that (1) the respondents, its servants etc. be restrained by an interim injunction from selling or offering for sale industrial or other chains under a mark containing a cross-legged 'W' in device of a star or a mark consisting of the word Wipperdrive or any other word deceptively or confusingly similar to Wippermann, and (ii) that the respondents, its servants etc. be restrained from infringing the applicant's said marks by using any mark or marks deceptively or confusingly similar thereto. (2) It has been alleged by the applicant that it was established in 1892 and has been engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture of chains of various kinds. Its products a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-24-1976
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi779; [1978]115ITR842(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are six conjoint writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In all of them the parties are the same. So are the essential facts and the questions to which they give rise. The only difference is that they pertain to different assessment years for purposes of income-tax. This judgment will govern them all. '67 English Reports 313.'(2) First the facts. As a Hindu undivided family the petitioner firm M/s. Chiranji Lal Ramji Dass was carrying on business as commission agents. This family firm remained joint in status and business up to November, 13, 1955 when as a result of a partial partition the business assets were divided among the coparceners. up to the assessment year 1956-57 the family was assessed in the status of HUF. Thereafter the profits arising from the business were assessed in the status of a registered firm. The petitioner firm was the commission agent of Ganesh Floor Mills and were working as such at various pla...
Tag this Judgment!