Delhi Court January 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Delhi Administration Vs. Parkash Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi151; 1967CriLJ1630; 3(1967)DLT383
ORDER1. This case has been reported by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, with the recommendation that the order of the trial Magistrate dismissing the complaint be quashed and the main question which arises determination is whether an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act 1955 (Act No. 9 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a cognizable offence. (2) The brief facts of the case are that a police report entitled State through S.I. Har Kesh of Special Staff, Old Police Lines, Delhi, against Parkash Chand and nine tohers, was forwarded to the trial Court by the Prosecuting Inspectors on 27th January, 1966. According to the allegations made in the report S.I. Har Kesh, on receipt of trustworthy information that the house of Parkash Chand (respondent was being used as a common gambling house, obtained a warrant from the Superintendent of Police under section 5 of the Act entitling him to search the same and arrest the persons found there. In ...
V.P. Joshi Vs. B.N. Tandon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT150
Hardy, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of .the Constitution challenges the order of detention made by District Magistrate, Delhi on 2-1-1967 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950) as amended from time to time. The petitioner's activities have been considered by the detaining authority as being highly prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order in the Union Territory of Delhi. As many as 36 grounds are mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu who has argued his own case before me. The petitioner is an advocate of this Court and is a prominent social and religious worker. He has been associated with the religious and social activities of the Arya Samaj from his early age and is a Secretary of the Arya Samaj Educational Trust and of a girls higher secondary school. He professes to be a conscientious believe...
Ved Parkash Kapur Vs. Harish Chander Rastogi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT341
Hardy, J.(1) This revision petition arises out of an order made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and confirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in an application under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by Shri Harish Chander against the firm J. N. Mehra and Brtohers for their eviction from certain office premises in Mangal Market, Joghian Colony, Delhi on grounds of non-payment of rent, unauthorised subletting and substantial damage to the property. J. N. Mehra and Brtohers were sued through Shri J. N Mehra on the allegation that he was the sole proprietor of the firm J. N. Mehra and Brtohers and was thus the only tenant of the premises. The tenant did nto deposit the arrears of rent in accordance with the order passed under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As a result, his defense against ejectment was struck out. The appeal filed by the tenant against the order was also dismissed by the Tribunal. During the pendency of the applicati...
Chander Parkash Aggarwala Vs. the District Magistrate of Delhi and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT143
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. (2) On November 16, 1966, the District Magistrate, Delhi, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-secti (3) SUB-SECTION (2) of section 3 of the Act enables a District Magistrate, if satisfied as provided in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, to make an order of detention. Sub-clause (ii) and ii) read as follows :- '(II)the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, or'The detention of Shri Aggarwal was however, ordered by the District Magistrate, Delhi 'for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.' Intoher words the order was nto made for preventing Shri Aggarwal from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of s...
L. Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT337
Khanna and Hardy, JJ. (1) The short question, which arises for determiation in this Regular First appeal filed by Hasish Chandcrp a ntilY appellant against Union of India, is whether the appellant served a valid ntoice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below answered the question in the negative and dismissed the plaintiffs suit on that ground alone. (2) The brief facts of the case are that in December 1948 the Assistant Controller. Printing and Stationary, Estern Punjab Railway, placed an order wi(h thJ plaintiff for the Binding of 23000 Guard Limp Cover Piles. The files were to be stitched in books with three patches of cltoh parted inside. The plaintiff carried out the work and delivered the files after doing the needful. A dispute then arose between the parties with regard the rate at which the plaintiff was to be paid for the work done by him. According to the plaintiff, the payment for the work done was to be made at the rate of eight annas per file, wher...
Chadha Mtoor Transport Co. (P.) Ltd., Delhi Vs. R.N. Chopra S/O Uttam ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi75
ORDER(1) This judgment would dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 31-D of 1964, No. 302-D of 1964 and No. 668-D of 1965, all of which have been filed by Chadha Mtoor Transport Company (Private) Limited.(2) Arguments have been addressed before us in Civil Revision No. 319-D of 1964 and it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the decision in this case would also govern the toher two cases because the matter involved is identical In the circumstances, we may briefly refer to the facts of the case in Civil Revision NO. 319-D of 1964. R. N. Chopra respondent in that revision brought a suit for recovery of Rs.328.80 nP. On account of compensation for non-delivery of goods against the petitioner Transport Company in the Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes, Delhi. The petitioner-company made an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. X of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for stay of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent had entere...
HalimuddIn Rahat Maolaey Vs. Election Commission of India, New Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi135
ORDER1. The facts relevant to the issue on which we propose to base our decision lie within a very moderate compass. On 27th of October, 1966, the Election Commission of India addressed a letter to Shri Khem Chandra, who claimed to be the General Secretary of Republican party of India, Uttar Pradesh, stating -'I am directed to state that the Commission is satisfied that the party which is recognised by it for the purpose of alltoment of symbol is the Republican party under the presidentship of Shri B.K. Gaikwad. As such, that authority only will be recognised by the Commission for alltoment of symbol to the candidates of the Republican Party in the elections to be held in Uttar Pradesh.'(2) This was followed by a ntoification dated 1st December, 1966, in which names of certain parties were specified in clause 1 (b) as `multi-State party'. Name of the Republican Party was nto included. By this ntoification `reserved symbol' was defined to mean 'in relation to any recognised party specif...
Chadha Mtoor Transport Co. Vs. R.N. Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1967
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi309
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This is a second appeal from order, presented under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act) from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 5/12/1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 4/9/1967 rejecting the application of Suraj Parkash for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction made on 27/5/1966.(2) It appears that in the proceedings for eviction, 27/5/1966 was fixed for the remaining evidence of the landlord and 2/6/1966 for the evidence of the tenant. On 27/5/1966, neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared at the hearing, with the result that on that very day, an ex-parte order of eviction was made against him. On an application for setting aside the ex-parte order having been made, buth the Courts below, on a consideration of the evidence, have come to the concurrent conclusion that the tenant had nto shown any sufficient cause for his absence on 27/5...
Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. D.D. Bhargava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi97; 1967CriLJ1494
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court of India from my order dated 21-11-1966 dismissing the petitioner's revision application presented under sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution.(2) On behalf of the respondent. It is objected that the impugned order cannto be described to be final order within the meaning of Article 134(1)(c) and, thereforee, the present application is incompetent. It would be open to the petitioner, according to this submission, to apply to the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. In support of this objection, the respondent's learned counsel has placed reliance on the State of U.P. v. Col. Sujan Singh : 1965CriLJ94 , according to which an order cannto be stated to be 'final order' within the meaning of that expression in Article 134 of the Constitution if it does nto ...
Satya Wati Devi Vs. Union of India Through Secy., Govt. of India, Mini ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi98; (1969)IILLJ195Del
1. The present suit was instituted by the mother of Shiam Narain Singh, deceased, aged 22 years on the date of the accident, that is 13th July, 1951. The father of Shiam Narain Singh did not join as plaintiff and he was, therefore, imp leaded as defendant No. 3. 2. Shiam Narain Singh held a permanent commission on the Indian Air Force at the time of his death his total emoluments amounted to Rs. 527-8 per month. Shiam Narain Singh was killed in an accident with a three toner Air Force Vehicle which was at the time of the accident, being driven by M.N. Kanji Lal, defendant No.2. On the fateful day it was at about 8-00 P.M. that defendant no. 2 who had been detailed with vehicle No. 550542 at the Delhi Sports Run, entered the `in' Gate of 3 Wing Guard Room Indian Air Force, on Maud Road, Delhi cantonment, to report to the Guard Room about his return. He came out of the `out' Gate and was going to park the vehicle at the Sub-Motor Terminus on the same road. For going to the parking termin...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »