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.
Rattan Chand and ors. Vs. Arora Provision Stores
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT61
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision is directed against the older of the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dated 13th March 1963 allowing the appeal and revers sing the order of a learned Subordinate Judg 1st Class dated 31st August 1961 whereby the plaintiff's suit. for recovery of Rs. l,080.00 and for ejectment against the defendant was decreed.(2) The suit in the trial Court had been instituted by Smt. Mohan Devi, wife of Shri Gopi Chand, forma pauperis on the allegations that M/s. Arora Provision Stores of Delhi was a tenant under her with regard to a khokha situated at Phatak Mishri Khan, Daryaganj. Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.30.00 and that no rent had been paid from 1st February, 1951 to 31st January, 1954. On the pleadings, the following three principal issues were settled:-- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether any valid ntoice of demand was served upon the defeneant 3 Whether the plaintiff ...
Nand Gopal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT338
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) These are two petitions by Nand Gopal Sardana and Darya Singh Lathar under section 561-A and 439 Criminal Procedure Code, for the expunging of certain adverse remarks against the petitioners passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, in his order, dated 20th June, 1967, in a case before him. State v. Lahori Ram At the relevant time, i.e. on 25th January 1966, Nand Gopal Sardana, Public Witness 6, was the Manager of the State Bank of Patiala at Simla, and Darya Singh Lathar, Public Witness 3, was the cashier in the said bank. (2) The facts of the case, as set out by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his Judgment, may be summarised as follows: - (I)On 25th January 1966, Nand Gopal Sardana, P W.6, sent a written complaint (Ex. P/B), through his peon. Jit Ram, to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, reporting that a shortge of Rs. 40. 000.00 in four packets of hundred rupee currency ntoes in the bank's cash balance had been detected on that d...
Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi183
ORDER(1) This execution second appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 5-10-1962 holding the appeal (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1961) presented in his Court against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dated 3-6-1957 to be barred by limitation because the order appealed against did nto bear the proper Court-fee. (2) The circumstances in which the appeal was dismissed as barred by time by the learned Additional District Judge are that from the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dated 3-6-1957, a revision was presented in this Court on 18-10-1957. This was referred to a Full Bench by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in April, 1961 and the Full Bench on 8-12-1961 held that no revision was competent in this Court because the impugned order was appealable. In this Court, the revision had nto been converted into an appeal by the learned Single Judge because, I am informed, the learned Single Judge felt that...
Payen and Talbros Ltd. Vs. Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT130
S.N. Shanker, J. (1) By order dated 26th December, 1966 the Delhi Administration made a reFerence to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, for the determination of the following issue : Whether the management of the petitioner-Company be required to introduce a Gratuity Scheme and if so, on what terms and conditions ?(2) The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal. In the written statement of the management, the following preliminary objection i was taken: 'An appreciable or substantial number of workmen employed by the company have nto espoused or supported the matter of dispute i under reference and the Union alleging to represent the workmen emjployed by the company has no locus stand! to represent them In fact, there is antoher Representative Union recognised by the Com- pany namely Payen-Talbros Employees Union (Regd ) which has j t entered into a number of long term and comprehensive settlements Jl with the Company in the past regarding various demands of the workmen, but it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›