Delhi Court May 1967 Judgments
Angrup Thakar and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi97; 3(1967)DLT455
ORDER1. This petitioners owned 84 bighas 11 bids was of land in village Dobhi. A ntoification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on January 22, 1965, with respect to the aforesaid land. In the said ntoice it was recited that'land is likely to be required to be taken by Government at the public expenses for a public purpose namely for the construction of building and doing research work on vegetables'This ntoification was followed by ntoification dated October 15,1965. Under S. 6 of the said Act. The relevant part of which reads:'Whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that land specified below is needed by the Government at public expense for a public purpose namely for the construction of building and doing research work on vegetables at the Indian Agriculture Research Institute, Vegetable Breeding Sub-Station.................'(2) Aggrieved by this acquisition, the land owners petitioners filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.(3) The first ...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Kaj Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ820; 4(1968)DLT34
Dua and Jagjit Singh, JJ.(1) This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution was presented in this Court by the petitioner Dev Raj, Head Constable No. 29/C Delhi Police, throught jail on 12. 5. 1967. We issued ntoice on IS. 5. 1987 turn 18. 5. 1967 and directed that the petitioner detenue be produced in this Court on that day. Unfortunately, the cue has nto been disposed of till today. As a matter of fact, it was placed before a learned Single Judge on 18. 5. 1967 when it was directed to be placed before us to day. (2) The respondents have produced the remand orders made by cornpetent Courts from time to time confining the petitioner to Judicial custody, during the course of the proceedings prelimingry to his trial. We have before us three complaints against the petitioner; the first one was lodged on 29. 4. 1967, the second on 1. 5. 1967 and the third on 4.5.1987. These cases, it may be pointed out, are an offshoto of the unprecedented agitation launche...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Anand Vs. Delux Films and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT321
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) The .Plaintiff has appealed to this Court from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Delhi, dated 5th September, 1960 dismissing the plaintifi.appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants, restraining them from exhibiting the film 'New Delhi' at any place whatsoever and for accounts of the profits made by the defendants up to the dale of the suit.(2) The plaintiff who is an architect by profession and carries on the said business in the panne ship under the name and style of M/S. Anand Apte and Jhabvala at Delhi, also claims to be a Playwright, Dramatist and producer of Stage plays. He claims to have written and produced at Delhi and toher places plays entitled 'Desh Hamara', 'Azadi' ''Elections' and 'Ham Hindustani', having produced several toher plays as well. The present litigation is concerned with the play 'Hum Hindustani' which, according to the plaintiff s case, was written by him in Hindi in or a...
Tag this Judgment!Poineer Chemical Co. Vs. Suraj Bhan Prem Raj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT642
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution directed against the order of Competent Authority, dated 23rd May, 1966, granting to Messrs Suraj Bhan Prem Raj permission to execute the order passed by the Rent Controller on 30th November, 1964, for eviction of Messrs Pioneer Chemical Company, the petitioner in this Court. (2) The first ground on which the application was admitted has nto been pressed by the learned counsel, conceding that this is covered by a decision of this Court in which it has been held that the Competent Authority is nto obliged to take oral evidence. (3) The only toher point which has been pressed before me is that the learned Competent Authority has committed some factual mistakes, one of them being the observation that Shri H. K. Gupta, has nto stated in his affidavit any relationship with the firm. Shri R. L. Aggarwal very eloquently contends that this assumption by the learned Competent Authority is wrong in fact and if once thi...
Tag this Judgment!SirajuddIn Vs. Prem Vanti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT50
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Revision Petition has been filed by a Judgment-debtor, Sirajuddin, against the Judgment and order of Shri D. R. Khanna, Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dated 3rd March, 1967, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1967 confirming the order, dated 10th February, 1967, of Shri G. C. Gupta, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, in Execution Case No. 84 of 1966 in Suit No. 540 of 1956 on his file. (2) The respondent decree-holder, Smt. Prem Wati, is the landlord of the premises No. 8166, Mohalla chimney Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, and the petitioner Judgment-debtor was originally a tenant of the said premises. The respondent filed the above mentioned suit against the petitioner for his ejectment on the ground that she required the premises for her personal requirements. The suit was decreed under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 on 27th March, 1957. The petitioner judgment-debtor was granted 15 months to vacate the premises...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Sardari Lal Vs. Superintendent of Central Jail and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ675; 3(1967)DLT419
Dua, J. (1) Bakshi Sardari Lal, Sub-Inspector of Police, has presented this petition through his counsel under Article 226 of the Constitution for the grant of order direction or writ in the nature of writ of habeas corpus. According to the avernments in the petition, he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in P. S. Kamla market and on 14th April, 1967, he went on sick leave because he had an attack of bron'chitis. An entry to this effect was duly made in Roznamcha of P. S. Kamla Market. He claims to have been confined to indoor treatment and he gto well on 22nd April, 1967 when, according to him, he regained his health and became fit to report for duty. Having come? to know that warrants for his arrest had been issued, he surrendered himself on 22nd April, 1967 before Shri Godha Ram, D.S.P. Delhi. He was accordingly prodocuced on that very day before Kumari Vimla Bhagat, Magistrate 1st Class, functioning as Duty Magistrate on that date, who released the petitioner on bail. Kumari Vim...
Tag this Judgment!Vishku Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT33
M.M. Ismail, J. (1) This is a criminal revision filed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and when this case came up for Admission on 2nd May 1967, I admitted the case only on the ground of alleged non-compliance with section 10(7) of the said Act. (2) When the case was taken up in the forenoon, the counsel for the petitioner was nto present, and Mr. Safeer, appearing for the State, very fairly assisted me to go through the record and decide the case. Section 10(7) of the Act prior to its amendment in 1964, provided that the Food Inspector when taking any action under clause, (a) of. sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) shall, as far as possible, call nto less than two persons to be present at the time when such action in taken. In view. of the use of the words as far as possible'., there was a difference of opinion as to the provisions of the section...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Ratti Lal Trivedi Vs. Anjani Madhusudan Oza
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT235
M.M. Ismail, J.(1) This Civil revision petition filed under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, raises an important question regarding the construction of section 25 of the. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955). The petitioner married the respondent herein in May, 1864. On a petition filed by the respondent herein in January, 1965, the marriage was annulled uner section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marrriaga Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act by a decree of mullity passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 26th April, 1966. On. 9th June, 1966, the respondent herin applied for an order for payment of permanent alimony to her. That application of the respondent wa resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that the marriage having been declared to be a nullity, the relationship of husband and wife never existed between the parties and hence, in any event, it ceased with the passing of the said decree and in consequence 237. the petition filed by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Devi Vs. Dev Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT46
M.M. Ismail, J.(1) This appeal arises from an order of the Mtoor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated 29th April, 1964. The short facts necessary for this purpose are that a son of the appellant herein, one Jagdish Kumar, was standing behind truck No. Png 1861 in Naya Bazar near Suri Goods Transport Company, Delhi, on 22th July, 1960 at 7-5U P. M. when truck No. Dlg 3749 driven by respondent No. 1 in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck, while reversing, dashed into truck No. Png 1861 and crushed Jagdish Kumar who was standing behind it. Jagdish Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to them in lrwin Hospital where he was taken. The present appellant filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 from the respondents alleging that the accident resulting into the death of Jagdish Kumar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who, while reversing his truck, did nto take care to see that the road on the back was clear. Re...
Tag this Judgment!J. and P. Coats Ltd. Vs. Chadha and Co. (India), New Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi141
(1) This is a plaintiff's regular first appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge Delhi dated 1-6-1961 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts and toher consequential relief against the two defendants (respondents in this Court). (2) According to the plaintiff, a company registered under the English Companies Act, with its registered office in Glassgow, Sctoland (U.K.), manufacturers and deals in sewing and embroidery threads of all kinds. The goods manufactured by the plaintiff are sold throughout the world under various Trade Marks. Its selling agents in India are Messrs. The Central Agency Ltd., with their principal office at Bombay and deptos in toher big towns including Delhi, where it is situated at Garstin Bastion Road. The plaintiff claims to be the registered owner of the Trade Mark 'Anchor Handicraft Box Top', among toher Trade Marks registered in its name under Class 28 in respect of threads of all kinds. F...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »