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.
D.S. Bhatnagar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi83; 1967CriLJ1297
ORDER(1) This is an application by D.S. Bhatnagar, an under-trial `B' class prisoner confined in the Central Jail, New Delhi for his release on bail pending his trial under section 307, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. The alleged offences are stated to have been committed on 23-8-1966. The petitioner claims to belong to a respectable family is a B.Sc. from United States and Law Graduate from the Government Law College, Bombay, having passed the Bar Council Examination and also being on the rolls of the Bombay High Court. At the present moment, he claims to be an officer in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. He has averred in his application that the police have had four months time for investigation and the challan has actually been filed in Court. But there has been practically no progress in the case since then. From the record, I find that the evidence of P.W. 1 Uma Shankar and P.W. 2 Daya Nath was recorded on 3-11-1966 by the learned Magis...
Bal Diwakar Hans Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT172
Hardy, J. (1) The petitioner Bal Diwakar Hans was arrested on 2nd December, 1966, pursuant to an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on 30th November, 1966, under Section 3 (i) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as amended, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has be en ordered are that his activities were highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the Union Territory of Delhi. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his counsel Shri R. P. Bansal has raised the following contentions on his behalf : (i) that no order of detention was served upon the petitioner either citing the preamble or the conclusion of facts as required under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act at the time when he was arrested and that it was only after a week or so of his arrest that the petitioner came t...
State Vs. D.S. Bhatnagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT299
Dua, Act. C.J. 1. This is an application by D.S. Bhatnagar, an under-trial 'B' class prisoner confined in the Central Jail, New Delhi, for his release on bail pending his trial under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. The alleged offences are stated to have been committed on 23-8-1966. The petitioner claims to belong to a respectable family is a B. Sc. from the United States and a law Graduate from the Government Law College, Bombay, having passed the Bar Council Examination and also being en the rolls of the Bombay High Court. At the present moment, he claims to be an officer in the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research. He has averred in his application that the police have had four months' time for investigation and the challan has actually been filed in Court. But there has been practically no progress in the case since then from the record. I find that the evidence of P.W. 1 Uma Shanker and P.W. 2 Daya Nath was recorded on 3-11-1966 by th...
Shakuntala and ors. Vs. Agwan Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi12
1. Bhagwan Dass respondent claimed a decree for possession of the land in ... on November 11,1964. The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964 ( Act. No. Xliii of 1964) came into force on 27th February, 1965, Before 27th February 1965, However the land lord filed an application for execution of the decree and warrants for eviction of the tenant were issued. The bail if, however, returned the warrants with a report that there was apprehension of breach of peace and possession could nto be delivered without police aid. The said Amendment Act came into force in the meantime. The Judgment-debtor filed an application under S. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, objecting to the execution of the decree without permission from the Competent Authority under the said Act as amended in 1964. The short controversy that arises between the parties is whether it is necessary for decree-holder to obtain permission of the Authority under the said Act before e...
Bharat Nidhi Limited Vs. Megh Raj Mahajan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT140
S. K. Kapur and S. N. Andley, JJ.(1) On 24th August, 1949, Bharat Nidhi Limited than known as Bharat Bank Limited, the plaintiff appellent, filed a suit against Megh Raj Mahajan, defendant-respondent, for recovery of Rs. 61,194.00, being the debit balance in the cash credit account with the plaintiff. On 20th December, 1949, the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sialkto, decreed the suit and the present suit for recovery of Rs.63,004.00 was filed on 12th June, 1954, on the basis of the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sialkto. The judgment and decree were passed ex parte and there is an observation in the decree that' a summons was duly served upon the defendant, ntowithstanding which he has nto appeared to defend the suit.' It may be pointed out at this stage that it is from this observation that the Trial Court concluded that the defendant had been properly served with a ntoice issued by the Sialkto Court. From this finding the learned counsel for the appellant wants us to deduce th...
Hgrilal Vs. Tek Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT649
I.D. Dua, Act. C.J. (1) Shri Hori Lal has approached the Court on second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act No. 59 of 1958 from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20th August 1964 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the Rent Controller dated 20th January 1964 granting to Tek Chand (respondent in this Court) his prayer for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute against the appellant. (2) It is necessary at this stage to go back to 19th September 1963 when in Tek Chand's petition for ejectment of Hori Lal it was observed by the Rent Controller that admittedly Hori Lal was in possession of theseremises. In the order, the Rent Controller then proceeded to observe as follows :- 'IT is stated that at first the premises were sold in his favor by the Rehabilitation Department but has failed to pay the full price, the sale was cancelled and the present petitioner has purchased this property and a sale' deed has been issued in his favor. Ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›