Delhi Court November 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 Iron and Si Eel Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT15
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, made on 9th January, 1958. By means of the impugned order, an application by the Union of India under section 34 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and proceedings in the suit directed to be adjourned sine die. It is unfortunate that appeals of this type are nto given priority and the suit should have remained stayed for nearly 10 yearly because of the. pendency of this appeal in this Court. (2) It appears that on 8th January, 1955, the plaintiff (appellant in this Court) purchased 569 tons of scrap dog spikes brooken from the Ghaziabad depto of the defendant which was auctioned by M/s. Mackenzie Lyall & Co., at the rate of Rs. 76.00 per ton subject to the confirmation of the price by the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. A sum of Rs. 10.850.00 was deposited by the plaintiff with the auctioneers on account of 25 per cent of the purchase money. The Iron and Steel Controller, C...
Ram Kumar Vs. Harish Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT74
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) Harish Kumar and his brtohers applied in the Court of the Rent Controller for the eviction of Ram Kumar and his brtoher Ram Krishan on the grounds of (i) default in payment of rent, (ii ) sub-letting and (iii) bona fide personal requirement. These pleas were controerted and it was added that Ra'n Kishan being the real brtoher of Ram Kumar, was living with him and there was no question of sub-tenany. On 9th September, 1960, claim against Ram Kishan was given up and Ram Kumar being absent, ex 'pane evidence was led on the basis of which an order of eviction based on the ground of subletting was passed against Ram Kumar (2) An application for setting aside the exparte order was made by Ram Kumar, but the same was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of that application was also dismissed in default on 17th Jannary 1962. The same day, a further application was made for re-to- ration of th' earlier application for restroration dismissed in default on 17th ...
Court on Its Own Mtoion Vs. K.S. Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1417
(1) After announcing our order yesterday in this case a doubt occurred in our mind if it was permissible to impose a sentence of imprisonment for two months, in default of payment of fine, on the contemner, we thereforee, directed that the case be placed before us again this morning. The contemner is also present. We have heard on this point Shri Parkash Narain. Learned Central Government Counsel, Shri Pritam Singh Safeer, Chairman of the Bar Council, Shri D. D. Chawla, President of the Singh Court Bar Association, and Shri Bishambar Dayal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Delhi. Shri Bal Raj Trikha, a senior member of the bar also offered to express his views on the point and we had the benefit of hearing him as well. (2) Our attention in this connection has been drawn to sections 63 to 70 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the General Clauses Act. The latter section reads thus: '25. Recovery of Fines - Section 63 to 70 of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and the P...
Chander Bhan Vs. Chattar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT501a
ORDER1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by Shri R. K. Baweja, Judicial Secretary, Delhi Administration, on appeal under Section 20 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, from an order of the Competent Authority, dated 14-9-1966, in disagreement with the order of the Competent Authority, granting permission to execute the decree of eviction of Chittar Singh, landlord-respondent, in this Court. 2. The Appellate Tribunal, though feeling convinced that the tenant was a labourer and, thereforee, a poor man, held that, that was nto the sole consideration in determining the application under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. For this view, he relied on a Bench decision of the Punjab High Court to Smt. Parvati Devi v. Tibbia College Board Delhi, 1966 DLt 256= AIR 1956 Pun 379. The Bench in the reported case observed that the mere fact of poverty of the tenant could nto stay in the way of blocking the improvement s...
Raj Kumar Vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT488
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Harish Kumar and his brtoher applied in the Court of Rent Controller for the eviction- of Ram Kumar and his brtoher Ram Kishan on the grounds of (i) default in payment of rent, (ii sub-letting and , bona fide personal requirement. These pleas were controverter and it was added that Ram Kishan being the real brtoher of Ram Kumar, was living with him and there was no question of sub -tenarcy On September 9, 1960, claim against Ram Kishan was -given up and Ram Kumar being absent ex-parte evidence was led on the basis of which an order of eviction based on the ground of sub letting was passed against Ram Kumar (2) An application for setting aside the ex Parte order was made by ham Kumar, but the same was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of that application was also dismissed in default on 17th January. 1962. The same day, a further application was made for restoration of the earlier application for restoration dismissed in default on 17th January, 1962 ...
Pritam Singh Vs. Suraj Pershad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT704
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This second appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S (hereinafter called the Act) from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24th July, 1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the order of the First Additional Rent Controller dated 23rd September, 1966 holding that the landlord bonafide required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and that he was nto in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and on his finding, making an order of eviction against the tenant with a direction to vacate the premises Within six months from the date of the order. buth the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal left the parties to bear their own costs. (2) On second appeal, which would nto lie under the statute unless it involved some substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, pressed his applic...
The Punjab Oil Expellers Company Vs. Madan Lal Nanda and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT56
Dua, J. (1) This revision has been presented by the defendant, the Punjab Oil Expeller Company of Ghaziabad, against an order ofthe learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 17th August 1962 affirming on appeal an order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, made on 26th March 1962 decling to set aside the ex-parte order dated 13th June 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 Limitation Act. (2) It would be helpful at this stage to state the relevant facts. The suit out of which these procceedings arise was instituted on 28th March 1958 for the recovery of Rs. 1,537/5/9 and the same was registered on 3rd April, 1958. On the date of registration of the suit, it was ordered that summonses should go for 12th May 1958. No inter- mediate date was fixed. There is a ntoe at the buttom of the older suggesting that in case of refusal service should be effected by affixation. This n...
Shayam Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT222
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This appeal was filed by the accused-appellant under section 408(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahasu District, dated 31st May, 1967, whereby the appellant was convicted for an alleged, offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay of a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of the payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. (2) The case of the prosecution was as follows :- On 23rd January, 1966, a girl, Smt. Shanta, daughter of Shaligram, aged about 12 years, was grazing cattle in a field in Katoch Kiar all alone. Her mtoher. Smt. Ranpati, was working in a field at a distance of about 150 feet. The accused, Shiam Singh, it was alleged, finding Shanta all alone, went to her from the side to which she had her beck, took her into his lap, carried her some distance to the side of a stone wall,...
J.W. Benon Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1967
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT483
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) The petitioners are five in number, namely, (1) J. W. Benon, (2) Smt. Prito, (3) Dharam Chand, (4) Kuljas Rai, and (5) Jagdish Chander. The said petitioners owned buildings including shops and business cum-residential flats, situate in the area of Ktohi Manali, Pahti Nasogi, in Tehsil and District Kulu. The said properties are located in a central and prized commercial area, being part of and adjacent to Manali Bazar, and were stated to be a choice piece of estate from the commercial point of view.(2) On 1st June, 1965, the Punjab Government ntoified by a Ntoification No. 1119-2UE-65/16501, dated 1st June, 1965 under 'Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , that it appeared to the Governor of Punjab that land was likely to be required to be taken by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of the area of village Ktohi Manali Pahti Nasogi, Tehsil and District Kulu, and that it was, thereforee, ntoified by the said Ntoification th...
Hardit Singh Giani Vs. Registrar of Companies, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi112; 4(1968)DLT6
1. I have found it difficult to decide this case. Both during the course of counsel's arguments and afterwards my mind has undergone several modifications and changes of opinion, Even today, I find it a difficult question of jurisdiction and discretion.2. The appellant Dr. Hardit Singh Giani was Liquidator of National Planners Limited which is now in liquidation. The company was incorporated on 23-2-1946 as a private company limited by shares under the Indian Companies Act 1913, but was soon converted into a public company by a special resolution passed on 5-6-1946. The nominal capital of the company was Rs. 20,00,000/- divided into 100,000 preference shares of Rs. 10/- each and 20,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 5/- each, while its paid up capital according to the latest balance-sheet of the company as on 30-6-1949 filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies Delhi was Rs. 96,394/50. One Roshan Lal (since deceased) was its Managing Director while his brother Kundan Lal was one of its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »