Delhi Court October 1967 Judgments
Ram Piari Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT148
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This appeal has been presented from the older of the learned Guardian Judge, Delhi, dated 8th 'November, 1966 allowing the petition of Sohan Lal (respondent before me under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for delivery of the custody of two minor children. The application was presented against Smt. Ram Piari, wife of Sohan Lal, and mtoher of the two minor children. The application was opposed by the mtoher of the children and on the pleadings the only issue framed and tried by the Court below was whether the appellant was entitled to the custody of the minors. The learned Guardian Judge was influenced by the fact that under Hindu law, father is the natural guardian of the minor children and that in the case in hand, the minors were nto of such tender age as to require constant attendance from the mtoher. On this view, the learned Judge found no reason why the natural guardian should nto be allowed custody of his miner children. While- narrating the facts, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Atma Ram and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT688; 1968LabIC2546
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) The petitioners in this case are the trustees of a body known as Delhi Cltoh Market Trust Committee (hereinafter called 'The Trust'). It appears that the trust has been maintaining a staff consisting of 16Chaukidars,ll Sweepers, electricians, I Clerk and 2 Munims. A dispute relating to certain general demands of these employees having arisen, between the management of the Trust and the employees, the same was referred for adjuaication to the Industrial Tribunal. Delhi.. In answer to the claim of the employees, it was contended on behalf of the Trust, by way of preliminary objection, that it was nto an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an interim award, dated 12th of January, 1965, the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi has held that this contention of the Trust was wrong and that it was an industry falling within the definition of section 2(j) of. the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners in this case are the trustees, who con...
Tag this Judgment!L. Atma Ram and ors. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1967
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi130
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The petitioners in this case are the trustees of a body known as Delhi Cltoh Market Trust Committee (hereafter called 'the Trust'). It appears that the Trust has been maintaining a staff consisting of 16 Chaukidars, 11 sweepers, 2 electricians, I clerk and 2 Munims. A dispute relating to certain general demands of these employees having arisen between the management of the Trust and the emp, the same was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. In answer to the claim of the employees, it was contended on behalf of the Trust, by way of preliminary objection, that it was nto an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an interim award, dated 12/1/1965, the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, has held that this contention of the Trust was wrong and that it was an industry falling within the definition of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners in this case are the trustees, who constitute the body ...
Tag this Judgment!Khair-un-nisa Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi162; 4(1968)DLT458
ORDER(1) The petitioner and one Mst. Kulsum Bi were the owners in equal shares of a property bearing Municipal No. 15/6747 to 15/6761 (old) situate in Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Mst. Kulsum Bi migrated to Pakistan and her half-share of the property was declared to be evacuee property and vested in the Custodian of evacuee Property. However, the Custodian collected the rent from the tenants of the entire property. The petitioner herein was residing at Calcutta and even when Mst. Kulsum Bi was in India, it was Mst. Kulsum Bi who was looking after the property on behalf of the petitioner also.(2) In view of the fact that the Custodian of Evacuee Property took charge of the entire Property and was collecting the rents there from, the petitioner herein instituted a suit against the Custodian of Evacuee Property for rendition of accounts and for recovery of her share of rent. Paragraph 12 of the plaint was in the following terms:'The plaintiff prays that a decree may kindly be passed against the...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Parkash Vs. Premlata and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1967
Reported in: 1971RLR121
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Additional Session Judge has made a recommendation for quashing the order of the trial Magistrate granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 50.00 per month to the respondent-wife in the following circumstances (2) Chander Parkash, petitioner, married Prem Lata, respondent in October 1956. They had two issues, Anil Kumar a son, and Sushma Rani a daughter. Sometime in 1965 the parties started living separately. The respondent alleged that she was deserted and maltreated and for that reason she could nto live with the petitioner. On 25th February, 1969, the wife for herself and on behalf of the minor children claimed maintenance from the petitioner under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (3) The Magistrate found that the husband was getting Rs. 300.00 per month while the wife was getting Rs. 1,921.00 per month (wrongly stated as Rs. 212.00 per month in the order of reference) as pay. buth of them are employed as telephone operators. He granted maintenance of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Gurmauj Saran Baluja Vs. M.R. Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT194
M.M. Ismail, J. (1) At the very outset, I must confess to a feeling that it will be difficult to come across a more frivolous case so tenaciously and vehemently argued. This Second Appeal under Section 09 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has been filed against the orders of the Rent Contoller affilmed by the. Tribunal, rejecting the application of the appellant for eviction of the respondent. (2) The application for eviction was filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent had sub-let a portion of the premises to one Dr. Razdan. The Controller in paragraph 7 of his order observed as follows :- 'the premises were given on rent to the father of the respondent Inder Son in March, 1954. The landlord at that time was Shri J. N. Baluja father of the petitioner. The sub-letting is alleged to have been made to Dr. Razdan in May 1955. The petitioner became the landlord and the respondent became his tenant in 1958. These facts are nto disputed'This observation of the Rent Control...
Tag this Judgment!Drugdeal Corporation Vs. Smith
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT313
ORDER21 rule 32 only prescribes the mode for the execution of a decree for injnction. If a court is moved to enforce execution of the decree under this provisn of law the application must be made within limitation as prescribed by Article 181, Limitation Act and no question regarding contempt of Court proceedings arises'. The point on which Mr. Whig laid great emphasis and for which he sought to derive support from this judgment was that the provisiors of Order 21 rule 32 were nto meant to be regarded as contempt proceedings and the jurisdiction which the court exercises in such cases was nto punitive. According to the learned counsel, all that the said provision of law requires is that the decree holder should be enabled to enjoy the fruits of his decree and this object (an only be achieved if the judgment debtor is compelled to do the very act which he is required to do under the decree and if he does nto do it himself then the same should be caused to be done through the agency of t...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Singh Vs. Des Raj Chowdhry
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT1
I.D. Dua, C.J. 1. Shri Surat Singh has presented this petition against Shri Des Raj Chowdhry, Leader, Congress Party Delhi Municipal Corporation and Shri Ranbir Singh, Chief Editor,' Milap Daily', under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1950. This petition deserves to be reproduced in extenso :--'1. That Shri Kishori Lal, a Member of the Congress Party, in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, filed writ Petition No. 448 of 1967 in this Hon'ble court on 1st May, 1967 which is still pending. 2. That the ntoices of the said Writ Petition have been issued to the respondents of whom the petitioner is one. Appearance has been filed on behalf of the respondents including the petitioner and they have prayed for time to file their reply to the Writ Petition. 3. That in order to prejudice the mind of the public and of the court against the respondents including the petitioner, the leader of the Congress party in Delhi Municipal Corporation gto an Article published in the issue of...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Chander Dhawan Vs. Karam Chand Mehra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi181
1. One Shri Jagdish Chander Dhawan is the petitioner in Civil Revision petition No. 492-D of 1960. One Shri Karam Chand Mehra is the first respondent in the said Civil Revision petition and one Rai Sahib Amar Nath Mehra is the second respondent in the said revision petition and the parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their position in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The first respondent herein filed a suit of dissolution of partnership and taking of accounts, impleading the second respondent herein as the first defendant. In that suit, the petitioner herein filed a written statement contending inter alia, that the first respondent herein also was liable to render accounts as some of the books of the partnership were in his possession and according to the petitioner, on rending of such accounts, he would be found entitled to a decree for Rs. 50,000. In the prayer clause, the petitioner prayed that the partnership be dissolved, a decree for rendition of accounts be ...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Dev Vs. Lila Wati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT697
M.M. Ismail, J. (1) The respondent herein filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2214.14 against the petitioner herein. Paragraph 6 of the plaint was as follows:- 'THATthe value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee for the recovery of arrears of rent is Rs. 2080.00 and for recovery of electric charges is Rs. 134.14, upon which Court fee of Rs. 284.20 and Rs. 14 has been fixed.'--- *** ---It is obvious that as required by Rule l(i) of Order Vii of the Code of Civil Procedure, the valuation for the purpose? of Jurisdiction has nto been mentioned. However, the suit being a simple suit for the recovery of money and the Court fee being ad valorem, there cannto be any doubt whatever, that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction will be the same as that for the court fee. In view of this, while framing the issues, the court below observed as follows:- 'INpara No. 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated the value for the purposes of court fee, but it appears that the word jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »