Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-21-1977
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi485
yogeshwar dayal, j. (1) this is a petition for revision filed on behalf of the tenant, shrimati kanta goel, under proviso to subsection (8) of section 25b of the delhi rent control act, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') against the order of the rent controller dated 16-9-1976 under section 14a(1) of the act rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent. as a sequiter, the rent controller, passed an order on the same day stating that since the petitioner's application for leave to contest ejectment application was rejected the respondent was entitled to a decree for eviction. the petitioner was asked to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months of the order.(2) the eviction petition dated 3-2-1976 was filed by shri b. p.pathak (respondent) against shrimati kanta goei (petitioner) purported to be under section 14a of the act, as amended by the delhi rent control act (amendment) act, 1976. in this petition, the eviction of the petitioner was sought from the first floor of premises no. 23/6, shakti nagar, delhi. the respondent had averred in the eviction application that he is the landlord of the premises in dispute, that the premises let out to the petitioner were residential. the description of the property was also given. regarding the eviction from the first floor, it was averred that the landlord is in occupation of the central government's premises .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-02-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi255; 14(1978)DLT153; 1978RLR205
t.v.r. tatachari, c.j.(1) when suit no. 582 of 1967 came up for hearing before s. s. chadha j. on 30th september, 1975, on the original side of this court, the learned judge noticed that there was a conflict of judicial opinion as regards the scope of the expression 'persons suing' in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932. considering that the said question of law is one which arises frequently in suits instituted by firms and, thereforee, requires to be decided by a larger bench, the learned judge referred the following question :- 'whetherthe expression 'persons suing' in section 69(2) of the act means 'all the partners of the firm who were its partners at .the time of the accrual of the cause of action' or it means' all the partners of the firm who are its partners at the time of the institution of the suit' ?'it is thus that this matter has. come up before us for our opinion on the aforesaid question of law.(2) for a proper appreciation of the question that has been referred, it is necessary to state briefly the facts of the case. the plaintiff firm was constituted under the name of m/s. shaaker housing corporation, tilak nagar, new delhi, and a deed of partnership. ex. public witness 5/1, was executed on 1st november, 1959, between sarvashri raghbir singh, net ram, tek chand,hari shanker bhargava, lala matu mal gupta and lala moti ram. exhibit d.5 is a certified copy of .form 'a', and it shows that the firm was registered on 9th june, 1960, with the aforesaid .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-03-1977
Reported in : 48CompCas536(Delhi); 13(1977)DLT176
h.l. anand, j. (1) this order would dispose of c. as 720/76,736/76,737/76,103/77, 4/77 and 180/77 made in c.p. 32 of 1976. (2) c.p. 32 of 1976, a petition, under sections 155, 397, 398 of thecompanies act, 1956 (for short, the act) by a member of motion pictures association, a company incorporated under section 25 of the act(for short, the company), with the purported support of more than therequisite number of members, as required under section 399 of the act,is based inter alia, on allegations of oppression of the minority by themajority in the control of the management of the company with a view,inter alia, to perpetuate the control of the group in power in the management of the company, to conduct the affairs of the comany in a partisanmanner so as to benefit the group in control and their supporters and toprejudice the interest of the minority and to take vindictive action, including action of expulsion from membership and other adverse actions in thematter of registration of motion pictures and settlement of claims. oneof the allegations is that the group in the control of the management ofthe company is running rough shod over its affairs and conducting theaffairs of the company in a manner which is contrary to the provisions ofthe articles of association, of the company and the various bye-laws,rules and regulations made by the company for the conduct of its business. on the basis of these allegations, and certain others, the petitionersseeks the removal of certain .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-25-1977
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT377; 1978RLR25
v.s. deshpande, j. (1) this is a blatant case of fraud practiced on banks by their officials to the prejudice of the banks as well as the customer or the drawer of a cheque. the liability of the banks to the customer was never in doubt. but the further question how banks should deal with the bank officials who defraud both the banks and their customers also deserves to be considered. (2) the appeal is by the punjab national bank which was defendant 1 in the suit filed by durga devi, respondent 1 herein. respondents 2 and 3. the national and grindlays bank limited and shri satya pal madan were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. a decree for rs. 18,000 against the national and grindlays bank has been passed but the said bank has not appealed against it. the punjab national bank and s. p. madan have been held to be jointly and severally liable with the national and grindlays bank to pay these rs, 18,000. further, they are also held liable to pay. rs. 2.835 as interest on these rs. 18,000. the decree was in favor of the plaintiff. (3) plaintiff durga devi wanted to keep rs. 18,000 in fixed deposit in the state bank of india. she, thereforee, issued a crossed cheque no. 821064 for rs. 18.000.00 in favor of the state bank of india on her savings bank account no. 683 with the jangpura branch of the punjab national bank. certain procedural difficulties stood in the way of state bank of india in issuing the fixed deposit receipt to the plaintiff. s. p. madan, thereforee, undertook to get .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-01-1977
Reported in : 48CompCas564(Delhi); ILR1978Delhi249b
dalip k. kapur, j. 1. this application has brought to light an unfortunate development regarding the management of the respondent-company, which has taken place during the pendency of the main petition, c. p. no. 32 of 1976, which itself is a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act, 1956. the respondent-company is an association, registered under the companies act, whose members are motion pictures distributors, producers and exhibitors. the entire motion picture industry in this part of the country, viz., the exhibiting of films, the running of cinemas and the arrangements between producers, exhibitors and distributors is carried on under the auspices of this association. there are about a thousand members of the association, who elect a board of directors described as an executive committee consisting of 18 members, who, under the articles of the company, themselves elect office bearers such as president, vice-president, secretary, joint secretary, etc., from amongst themselves. this election is to be held at the first executive committee meeting after the annual general meeting.2. at the hearing of this application, i have been referred to a number of articles dealing with the way in which the executive committee has to be elected and how the office-bearers have to be elected. an analysis of the rules shows that there are many defects in the same, but they cannot be dealt with at this stage. the present application shows that the annual general meeting was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-28-1977
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT334; 1978RLR476
prithvi raj, j.(1) this first appal is directed against the order dated 28th april, 1970, passed by a learned single judge setting aside award dated 10th june, 1965, on the ground that the arbitrators had 'failed to control and conclude the proceedings' which were commenced on or about 30th june, 1961, and that the arbitrators were guilty cf having misconducted themselves and the proceedings in that without affording proper opportunity to the claimant taking advantage of his absence, had made and announced the award in question. in that view of the matter, it was not considered feasible to remit the proceedings to the same arbitrators. the learned single judge superseded the reference on the ground that the procedure prescribed by article 64 of the general conditions of contract was 'not only cumbersome but wholly illusory and was not intended to inspire confidence between the parties'. as a consequence the learned single judge held that the arbitration agreement 'will cease to have effect with reference to the difference referred', and that 'the parties will be free to pursue their remedies in a civil court according to law, or to take such other steps as they think proper'.(2) relevant facts required to be noted for the disposal of this appeal are as under.(3) shri d. k. gupta (hereinafter to be called 'the claimant') was carrying on business under the name and style of m/s. sudhir bros. as its sole proprietor. he was awarded contracts for construction of three units of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1977
Reported in : 14(1978)DLT110
v.s. deshpande, j. (1) two important questions of law arise in this writ petition, namely :- (1)how the executive power of the union of india to dispose of its own land under article 298 of the constitution is to be exercised in compliance with its obligation under article 14 of the constitution not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws ? (2)whether the directions given by the central government to the delhi development authority regarding the disposal of nazul land could be issued only under the delhi development act, 1957 particularly under section 22(3) thereof o)- also under article 298 in exercise of executive power and the difference between the ambits of relevant considerations which may underlie a direction issued under the statute or the constitution as the case may be ?theimportance of these questions is accentuated by the fact that land with a building potential in delhi and particularly in south delhi is scarce and the central government as the owner of nazul land has to do the very difficult task of choosing some from numerous applicants for allotment of plots of land.(2) nazul land belonging to the central government in delhi which is placed by it at the disposal of the delhi development authority under section 22(3) of the delhi development act has to be dealt with by the authority in accordance with the rules made and directions given by the central government in that behalf under section 22(3) of the act. the basic .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-1977
Reported in : 14(1978)DLT37; ILR1978Delhi53
s. rangarajan, j.1. eight petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the criminal procedure code (new) and article 227 of the constitution of india for quashing the order, dated 20th october, 1976, passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate (shri. j.d. kapur) holding that the presence of insect known as makoda in the carbonated water known as rim zim sold to the food inspector shri r. p. singh, (p.w. 3) was prima facie sufficient ground to frame charge for selling adulterated carbonated water against all the eight of them.2. the case of the prosecution is that on 19th may, 1973 the food inspector shri r.p. singh (p w. 3) saw a truck no. dll 2222 carrying carbonated water parked in front of kumar cinema, chandni chowk and he contacted the driver-cum salesman manohar singh (petitioner/accused no. 1); after disclosing his identity as a food inspector he asked him to sell a sample of carbonated water. he saw one bottle of carbonated water 'rim zim' containing an insect, he purchased only one (that) bottle on payment of 90 p. not (6 as mentioned by the learned magistrate). the liquid inside the said bottle was of brown colour. it was not stated in the memo of sale (ext. pw 3/a) that the insect found was makoda (it was only mentioned as an insect). the reference to the makoda probably came only after a considerable lapse of time, when evidence was recorded; the prosecution has itself been launched in this case after a delay of nearly 2 1/2 years .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-18-1977
Reported in : (1978)ILLJ302Del
d.k. kapur, j.1. the industrial tribunal, presided over by shri d.d. gupta, made an award dated 22nd october, 1974, on a reference made under section 10(1)(d) of the industrial disputes act, 1944. the terms of the reference were as follows:whether dearness allowance payable to all categories of workmen employed in factory including general staff (employed in delhi branch) should be linked with consumer price index for industrial workers in delhi prepared by labour bureau, simla, from 1st july, 1973 as has been done in the case of office staff in delhi branch in pursuance of the award of the industrial tribunal in i.d. no. 40 of 1970 and what directions are necessary in this respect?it is apparent from the wording of the reference that the question referred to the tribunal referred to an earlier award being the one made by the industrial tribunal in respect of office staff employed by m/s. indian oxygen limited. the only question to be decided on this reference, was whether the dearness allowance should be linked with the consumer price index for industrial workmen in delhi with effect from 1st july, 1973, as had been done in the previous reference in respect of the office staff in the delhi branch the tribunal's award on this reference, was that the dearness allowance payable to workmen employed in the factory including the general staff should also be linked with the consumer price index for industrial workmen in delhi, with effect from 1st july, 1973. in other words, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-01-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi81
order1. this is a petition under art. 226 of the constitution instituted by the petitioner against the state transport appellate tribunal and the state transport authority, delhi, in relation to an application made by the petitioner for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route-delhi fountain to laxmi nagar. this application was filed, according to the petition after the s. t. a. had fixed the strength of the number of stage carriage permit to be granted over this route as two and invited applications. it is also stated that there were several applicants for the same; the petitioner himself had applied for one of the permits and another firm, m/s. mohan and co., had applied for both permits. the authority granted one permit to m/s. mohan and co., and all the other applicants were found ineligible for the grant of the second permit except m/s. mohan and co., and the petitioner. it appears that in jan., 1971, the petitioner and m/s. mohan and co., were called by the state transport authority for a personal hearing (this date seems to have been wrongly mentioned as jan., 1974 in the petition and elsewhere). at that stage, it was found that m/s. mohan & co., had sold their bus and were found ineligible for the permit. this left only the petitioner as the sole candidate. the petitioner claims that he is an experienced transport operator who should have been granted the permit on merits; but the authority rejected even the petitioner's application and decided to invite .....Tag this Judgment!