Delhi Court December 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.
Sant Ram Vs. Mekh Lal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi299
I.D. Dua, C.J.1. At the time of admission of this revision (C. R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R. N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andley, J. Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P. L. R. 528, a decision by Falshaw, C. J. And Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964 Cur Lj 119 = (1964) 66 PLR 503 (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) in support of their plea for admission of this revision. Shanker. J. felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decisions, with the result that while admitting the revision, he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal.2. The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. Iii of 1949 (hereafter described as the Punjab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced.'...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT435
J.D. Dua, J. (1) This civil revision puporting to have been presented under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order of the learned District Judge Simla, dared 10th May, 1967, allowing an appeal from the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, disallowing objections under section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, presented by the judgment-debtor and holding that the executing court could nto go behind the decree. The objections were on this ground held nto to be maintainable. I am informed that this was done at the preliminary stage without issuing ntoice to the decreeholder. (2) On an appeal having been taken before the the learned District Judge, the lower Appellate Court agreed with the view of the law that an executing Court cannto go behind the decree and enter into the controversy as to whether the relief granted under the decree arose out of the suit or was outside the scope of the suit A decree having been granted, the executing Court, even, acc...
Tek Chakd Chitkaria Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT284
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) At the time of admission of this revision (C.R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R.N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andly. J. Panna Lal v. Shri Jagan Nath a decision Falshaw C.J. and Chuhar Mal v. Shri Balak Ran, (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) insupport of their plea for admission of this revision. Shankar.J.felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decision, with the result that while admitting the revision he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal. (2) The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act No. 1II of 1949 (hereafter described as the PunJab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced :- '13.* * * * (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Contro...
Chuhary Vs. Sirtu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT412
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This appeal has been placed before us pursuant to the order made by S. N. Shankar J on lbth October 1967 and we are called upon to answer the following question.- 'WHETHERa Civil suit filed by a tenant dispossessed withoat bids consent from his tenancy or any part thereof is barred having regard to the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1959 'The re ference was necessiatated because of an apparent conflict between a Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhag Singh v. Jawhar Singh which had overruled an earlier decision of that Court and a decision of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, in Musadi v Smt. Ganpatu. (2) The facts so far as necessary for understanding the controvensy may now be stated. Bhutu, the husband of Smt.Balesru, was a non-occupancy tenant of the land in question. Defendant No 1Shri Chubaru was the owner landlord of the said land. When Bhuta was ejected from his tenancy, he applied t...
Shakuntla Devi JaIn Vs. Kanta Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT528
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench because the litigation between the parties has been pending since 1919 and the controversy being only in connection with partition, it was considered to promtoe the cause of justice, to conclude it by the decision of a Division Bench in the very first instance. (2) The respondents have raised a prolimiary objection that the appeal is barred by time. The facts relevant for considering this objection may now be stated. The order appealed from was passed on 20th January, 1967 in execution proceedings relating to the execution of the partition decree and was made on the objection of Smt. Shakun tala Devi, appellant in this Court,. Her objections, needless to emphasise, were dismissed. The appeal was presented in this Court on 17th March, 1967 without a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed from. Along with the memorandum of appeal, an application was presented under Rule 2(b) of Chapter 1 A, Vol. V of the High C...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sinha Govindji
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT164
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) The respondent Shri Sinha Govindji is the proprietor of Messrs Sinha Govindji carrying on business at Bellary in Mysore State. The said firm had an office in Bombay. On 18th January, 1960, the respondent was granted a license for import of 8 tons of Cellulose Nitrate sheets, rods. etc. of the value of about Rs. 75,000.00. The license was 'Actual User's license', so that the goods could be consumed by the respondent himself, and he was nto entitled to sell the same. He imported 44 cases of the material from London and the delivery thereof was taken in July, 1961. In December, 1961, the respondent addressed a letter to one Shri Bijay Sankar Bhargave of Sankar Brtohers, Delhi, offering to sell the material at Rs. 7.00 per pound. This letter was sent by the respondent from Bombay to the purchaser in Delhi. Shri Bhargava accepted the offer by a letter which he sent from Delhi to the respondent at Bombay. According to the complaint, Shri Bhargava instructed the respondent ...
Trilok Chand Vs. Thakar Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT170
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ambala (camp Simla), dated June 22, 1964. (2) The facts necessary to be stated for purposes of this appeal are very simple. Thakar Dass respondent was owner of one Bigha and five bids was of land comprised in Khasra No. 103-Min, (corresponding to the new Khasra No. 118) situate in village Dhar, Tehsil and District Simla. Out of that land 17 bids was of land had already been sold by him. The remaining b bids was of land was also sold by him, through a registered sale-deed, dated July 6, 1934 to Ram Chandra, father of Trilok Chand and Prem Chand. The sale-deed contained a recital that the possession of the land had been dilivered to the vendee Thereafter on April 30. 1963, the Respondent 1nstituted a suit against Shiv Singh Thapa and the sons of the vendee for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession of 9 bids was of the land of Khasra No. 11 b, which had earlier been sold b...
Ram Saran Dass Vs. Ram Kali and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT377; ILR1968Delhi300
I.D. Dua, J.(1) The only question raised in this second appeal centres round the decision on the issue :- 'ISthe plaintiff an owner in possession of the suit property and it is liable to be released from attachment ?'On the second issue, on the question of collusive nature of the suit. no arguments were addressed in the lower Appellate Court and the Court of first instance had disposed of that issue with the observation that there was no evidence of collusion in the case. (2) On the issue of ownership and possession also, it is ntoeworthy, the two Courts below have arrived at a concurrent conclusion. (3) The facts necessary for understanding the controversy may now briefly be stated. Ram Saran Dass appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the Court of first instance, had obtained a decree against Lakshmi Narain defendant No. 2 in that Court. In execution of that decree, house No. 923 situated in village Chiragh, Delhi, was attached. Smt. Ram Kali, respondent No. 1 in this Court, institute...
Darshan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT72
I.D. Dua, J. (1) In this case, the learned Magistrate made an order on 3rd May, 1937 directing. truck No. D.L.L. 1592 to be given on sapurdari in the sum of Rs. 25,000.00 to Shri Dershan Lal pending the disposal of the proceedings before him. It was stated before the learned Magistrate that Darshan Lal had purchased this truck from one Swarn Kumar Kohli in December, l966. It appears that later Mr. Girdhari Lal approached the Court of the learned Magistrate saying that this truck in fact belonged to him. Now by this time, it so happened, that the learned Magistrate Shri Amba Parkash, who had passed the original order, was succeeded by Shri P. Y. Jaikrishanan. the learned Magistrate on 27th July, 1967 directed Darshan Lal. Sapurdar of the truck in question, to produce the same in Court for the purpose of handing it over to Girdhari Lal. By means of a separate order, the said Magistrate had after going into the merits considered Girdhari Lai to be the legal owner of the truck in question ...
Raghu Nath Vs. Harbans Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT121
Om Parkash, J.(1) This revision-petition, against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Delhi has arisen out of an application filed by the petitioner, for making a preliminary decree, passed in a suit for redemption of mortgage, final. The facts of the case are given in the order dated the 11th September 1963 of Mr. Justice D. K. Mahajan, passed in Civil Revision No. 633-D of 1962. The facts are that, on the 31st March, 1953, the petitioner had mortgaged, on the basis of a registered mortgage deed, three properties Nos. 9-D, 9-E and 9-F situated on Rajpur Road, Delhi, in favor of respondent No. 1, for Rs. 5,000.00. It was provided, in the mortgage deed, that redemption of the mortgage had to be obtained within four years and that toherwise the mortgage properties would be treated as having been sold. Within the period of four years, the petitioner had sent a letter to respondent No. 1 offering to pay Rs. 5000.00 and asking him to fix the time for taking the money and for delivery...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »