Delhi Court November 1966 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1966 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.022 seconds)S. Kirpal Singh Vs. Harbans Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi19
(1) This first appeal from order is directed against the judgment of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 26th August, 1965, dismissing the petition by the husband for a decree of judicial separation.(2) Kirpal Singh (hereafter referred to as the husband) was married to Shrimati Harbans Kaur (hereafter referred to as the wife) on 9th September, 1952, at Muzaffarnagar. He filed this petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the wife for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion. It was alleged by the husband that after the marriage the parties resides together in Delhi but no child was born out of the wedlock, that the wife stayed with the husband for 3 or 4 months and then deserted him without any reasonable cause, continuously for 3-1/2 years; that thereafter as a result of persuasion by some common friends and relations, the wife came to reside with the husband in the year 1957 but again in June 1959 left her marital abode without his co...
Tag this Judgment!Harmohinder Singh and anr. Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi56
(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 148-D of 1965 (Harmohinder Singh v. General Manager, Northern Railway and tohers and 153-D of 1965 (K. Audiseshan v. General manager, Northern Railway and tohers). The basic problem arising in buth the writ petitions is similar, though there is a slight difference in the facts.(2) Harmohinder Singh, petitioner served in the Army from 6th July, 1943 to 9th April, 1953 as Havildar Clerk while petitioner K. Audiseshan served in the Army as Havildar Clerk from 12th June 1945 to 22nd February, 1953. buth were appointed as Commercial Clerks in the Northern Railway on 16th August, 1953 and buth of them claim that on their appointment to the railway service they were entitled to the benefit of war service so that their pay scales had to be fixed on the basis as if they were appointed in the Railways at the time they commenced work in the army. Petitioner Harmohinder Singh claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of 9 years, 9 month...
Tag this Judgment!Kirpal Singh Vs. Harbans Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT131
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) This first appeal from order is directed against the judgment of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 26th August, 1965, dismissing the petition by the husband for a decree of judicial separation. (2) Kirpal Singh (hereafter referred to as the husband) was married to Shrimati Harbans Kaur (hereafter referred to as the wife) on 9th September, 1952, at Muzaffarnagar. He filed this petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the wife for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion. It was alleged by the husband that after the marriage the parties resided together in Delhi but no child was born out of the wedlock, that the wife stayed with the husband for 3 or 4 months and then deserted him without any reasonable cause continuously for 3 years ; that thereafter as a result of persuasion by some common friends and relations, the wife came to reside with the husband in the year 1957 but again in ' June 1959 left her marital abode w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das Amir Chand Vs. Mangat Rai Chhittumal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi70
(1) This appeal is clearly concluded by findings of fact and must be dismissed.(2) Mangat Rai Verma (respondent in this Court) instituted the present suit for the possession of a plto of land measuring 7 bids was situated in Mauza Chandrawali, Delhi - Shadara on the allegation that the said plto had been purchased by him from Sarvashri hair Saran Dass and Ram Saran Dass by means of a registered deed of sale dated 13-3-1938. The defendant, according to him had illegally entered into its possession. Along with the claim of possession of the said land.(3) The defendant in his written statement denied ownership of the plaintiff and pleaded that he had been in possession of the plto for more than 12 years and had acquired ownership by adverse possession.(4) The pleadings of the parties gave rise to two issues on the merits, one relating to the plaintiff's title and the toher of the acquisition of title by adverse possession on the part of the defendant. Later, an additional issue was framed...
Tag this Judgment!Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Bhargava
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi41; 1967CriLJ868
(1). These are two connected revision applications (Cr. R. 273-D of 1965 and Cr. R. 291-D of 1965) arising out of the same criminal proceeding. Cr. R. 273-D of 1965 has been presented by Electrical . Of Calcutta under sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Cr. R. 291-D of 1965 has been presented by Shri Om Khosla of Calcutta under Sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. buth are directed against the order dated 9-12-1964 of a learned Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, rejecting two identical application by the two petitioners presented in the trial Court on 26.9.1964 pleading that the complainant had nto applied his mind while filing the complaint and that as such it deserved to be dismissed.(2) In order to understand the real point in controversy, it may be observed that on 31-12-1962, Shri D.D. Bhargava, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (Office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exp...
Tag this Judgment!Balraj Madhok Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary Minis ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1967CriLJ865
K.S. Hegde, C.J.1. In each of these nine Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos. 2 to 10 of 1966) under Articles 22 and 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner therein prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling upon the respondents to produce him in Court and to show on what authority they have detained him and, if they fail to show lawful authority for doing so, to set him at liberty.2. The facts of these cases are more or less identical. Common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. Hence they are consolidated together. After the ugly incidents in Delhi on 7th of this month, the petitioners were arrested between the 7th and 13th of this month. They are now detained in prison. They allege that they were nto informed why they were arrested, nor were they produced before any Magistrate. Their case is that they are unlawfully detained.3. The case for the respondents is that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1967CriLJ628
K.S. Hegde, C. J.1. These proceedings arise from the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in sessions cases Nos. 6 and 9 of 1966. In the said cases the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted buth the appellants, Jai Singh and Prem Singh, for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Jai Singh to death, subject to confirmation of the sentence by this Court, but Prem Singh was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, Murder reference No. 49 of 1966 is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking confirmation of the death sentence imposed on Jai Singh. Criminal Appeal No. 93-D of 1966 is the appeal filed by Jai Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 912-C of 1966 is the appeal submitted by Prem Singh through the Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi.2. Briefly staled, the case for the prosecution is as follows:3. The deceased Faqir Chand Soni was the...
Tag this Judgment!The Punjab Oil Expellers Co., Ghaziabad Vs. Madan Lal Nanda and Sons a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi28
ORDER(1). This revision has been presented by the defendant, the Punjab oil Expeller Company of Ghaziabad, against an order of the learned additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 17-8-1962, affirming on appeal an order of a learned Subordinate judge 1st Class Delhi made on 26-3-1962 declining to set aside the exparte order dated 13-6-1958 on the ground that there was due service of the defendant and that the application was barred by time under Article 164 of the Indian Limited Act. (2) It would be helpful at this stage to state the relevant facts. The suit out of which these proceedings arise was instituted on 28-3-1958 for the recovery of Rs.1,537-5-9 and the same was registered on 3-4-1958. On the date of registration of the suit, it was ordered that summonses should go for 12-5-1958. No intermediate date was fixed. There is a ntoe at the buttom of the order suggesting that in case of refusal, service should be affected by fixation. This ntoe is obviously somewhat suspicious. On 12-...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Vs. Aggarwal Finance Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT15
Dua, J.(1) This is a first appeal from the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 6th April, 1964, passim' a decree for possession of the Fargo make passenger bus 1960 Model No. Mpe 7390 or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 20,000, and also passing a decree for the recovery of Rs 33,147.00 in favor of the Aggarwal Finance, Private, Limited, Respondent 1n the present appeal, against the appellant Mohammad and Liaqat Hussain. The impugned order was made in the proceedings following the appointment of an arbitrator under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and the making of award by the arbitrator. The arbitrator filed his award in the Court on 30th April. 1962, and in pursuance of ntoice of the said award, objections were raised by Mohanimad, the present appellant. Those objections were disallowed by the Court below by means of the impugned order. It is under these circumstances that the present appeal has been preferred(2) On the pleadings of the parties in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Charan Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi26; 1967CriLJ744
(1). Ram Sarup, a Police Constable, attached to Police Station, Tilak Nagar, had been convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi on 8-3-1966 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under S. 161 (Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each count, the two sentences running concurrently).(2) The case against him is that one Prem Singh went to Tihar Jail on 23-7-1965 to interview Ganga and tohers. The accused-appellant also used to visit the said jail in connection with his duties. The accused contacted Prem Singh and asked him to accompany the accused to the Police Station. Prem Singh had earlier been involved in a criminal case by the Najafgarh police and he felt that Tilak Nagar police might also do the same. The accused thereupon asked Prem Singh that if he was desirous of avoiding to go to the police station, then he should pay the accused Rs.50 by way of bribe. Prem Singh offered a sum of Rs.30 but on Ram Sarup's persistence in demand...
Tag this Judgment!