Delhi Court June 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.
Gur Singh Vs. Narad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT90
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) Gur Singh plaintiff instituted a suit against Narad defendant for recovery of Rs. 450.00 on the basis of a bond dated May 22, 1956, on May 17,1962. Admittedly on that date the suit was barred by time if the date of accrual be cause of action taken as May 22, 1956. The plaintiff claimed the benefit of section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, on the ground that befora the expiration of the period prescribed for filing the suit the defendant had made part payments on May 18, 1959, and December 27, 1960, and the acknowledgment of those payments appeared in writings signed by the defendant. There is a ntoe dated May 18, 1959, Exhibit PB/3, on the back of the bond and signed by the defendant acknowledging the payment of Rs. 10.00. If this is held to be a part payment sufficient to start a fresh period of limitation under section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit would be admittedly within time. The trial Court by judgment dated August 31, 1963, passed a decre...
C.L. Jolly Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi107
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) The house in question known as 'Vishnu Villa' situate in Sanjauli belonged to Shri D. D. Bharadwaj. It was let out to C. L. Jolly petitioner (hereafter referred to as the tenant) on a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Shri D. D. Bharadwaj died leaving behind several heirs. According to the petitioner, he left six legal heirs who became the owners of the property in dispute. Three of such heirs are Madan Lal respondent Sohan Lal and Krishan Kumar, son of the deceased. These brtohers also have a step-mtoher and it was admitted by Krishan Kumar (P.W.2) that their step-mtoher is a 'co-owner' of the property in dispute. There are two residential flats in the building. First floor had been let out to the petitioner while the second floor is in occupation of the landlord where according to the evidence Madan Lal's step-mtoher resides. After the death of Shri D. D. Bharadwaj, Madan Lal alone filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949...
Golo Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT506
Dua, J.(1) These four cases (Climinal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 48 and 49 and 51 and 52 of 1967) are the remnants of a bunch of five cases which were registered in this Court inconsequence of my visit to Solan Sub-Jail on 14th June, 1967. While inspecting that Sub-Jail, it appeared to me that these five persons, to whom those five criminal miscellaneous petitions relate were being detained without authority of law. On my return here, I directed show cause ntoices to go to the authorities concerned to produce the record and the persons detained in this Court and to Justify their detention under the law. On 20th June, 1967, Shri K. C. Pandit appeared in opposition to the show cause ntoices and asked for time for putting in appropriate returns. He, however, conceded that Nek Ram was entitled to be set at liberty because the Government had already decided to release him on the ground that he was reported to have been cured of the mental malady from which he was supposed to be suffering....
Abdul Butt Vs. Govt. of Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi49a; 1968CriLJ145
ORDER1. The petitioner Abdul Butt in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claims to be a citizen of India having this permanent place of residence at Village Ktoi-Chandiar, Tehsil Basoli, District Kathua in the Statea of Jammu and Kashmir. He alleges that he has been residing within the District of Kinnapur in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for the last five years or so and is carrying on business as a contractor of sawyer and has as many as twenty workmen employed under him. He also alleges that he has been doing work for the Public Works Department and for several toher persons and has to recover about twelve thousand rupees as outstanding for the work done by him for various persons in the District of Kinnapur.(2) According to Ntoification No. G. S. R. 377 dated 23rd March, 1962 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, certain portions of Kinnapur District in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh have been declared on and from 1-6-1962, ...
State Vs. Mehar Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1967
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT179
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This reference by The Sessions Judge, Mahasu Sessions Division raises an interesting question of law and arises in the following circumstances :- Respondent Mehar Chand was arrested by the Delhi police for an offence under section 364 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had kidnapped or abducted one Hima Ram in order that he may be murdered, and is presently confined in judicial lock-up at Solan under the orders of the Magistrate 1st Class, Kasumpti after the statutory period of remand had run out under section 167 Criminal Procedure Code The order of detention was passed under the provisions of section 344 Criminal Procedure Code It appears that during the coul sc of investigation the police came to the conclusion that besides the offence under section 364 Indian Penal Code the accused-respondent was also involved in the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code read with section 201, Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Hima Ram...
Saraf Mull Rairoo Mull Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi18
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:-'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Rs.3,489 assessable under the head 'toher sources' ?. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said interest income would be allocated as income from 'toher Sources' in the Partners' hands?.'(1a) Before I set out the facts of the case and proceed to answer the questions, it is necessary to deal with a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Revenue that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.(2) Under sub-section (8) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The jurisdiction with respect to the Union territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh was conferred on the High Court of Punjab. The relevant part of sub-section (8) of section 66 reads:'For the purposes of this section, 'the Hig...
Madho Shobha and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi59
ORDER(1) Madho Shoba, the first petitioner, is the minor daughter of Jiwan Lal, the second petitioner. They are residents of village Saproon. Tehsil Kandaghat, District Simla, which was formerly comprised in Punjab State but has now been included in the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners filed the present writ petitioner on the allegations which are set out below: -One Bishan Singh sold 7 bighas 12 bids was of land entered in Khata No. 48/67 and comprised in fields No. 295/265/5 Min. to two brtohers, Om Prakash and Sardari Lal, on November 6, 1950, for Rs. 2,000 by a registered sale-deed. The said Om Praksah and Sardari Lal, sold one bigha out of that land to the first petitioner for Rs. 500 by a deed of sale registered on February 28, 1956. The first petitioner built a house thereon at a cost of Rs. 35,000. The sale in favor of Om Prakash and Sardari Lal was mutated in the revenue records of village Saproon. Some dispute arose between the 1st petitioner and her vendo...
Union of India Vs. the Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT579
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This first appeal by the Union of India (hereinalter to be called the defendant) is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge Simla whereby the plaintiff's suit for recoveiy of Rs. 25,270.00 has bven decreed against the defendant with costs, (2) The plaintiff, the Karnal Distillery Co. (Private) Ltd, alleged that it had entered into an agreement with the government of Himaohal Pradesh on July 20, 1950 (Ex. P-l) whereby it agreed to supply 12,000 L. P. gallons, with 10% variation of quantity on either side. of country spirits to the Liquor Licensees of Mandi District during the remaining period of the financial year 1950-51, commencing from August I, 1950, at the rates mentioned in the said agreement. According to the agreement the Government had to provide a suitable building to enable the plaintiff to establish a Ware-house at Mandi, on a rent of Rs. 50.00 per mensern for the period of the contract. The plaintiff was also req...
Collector Mandi Vs. Som Krishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT559
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) The land of the petitioner situate in Mohal Bhojpur District mandi was acquired under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act. Som Krishan respondent dissatisfied with the award made a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Judge who enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. I, ll.:.12paise. The Collector filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner. The appeal was accepted on February 22, 1965, and the case was remanded to the District Judge. Respondent Som Krishan was also allowed an opportunity to adduce evidence provided he paid Rs 75 as costs. It is the case of the collector that Som Krishan respondent directed to appear before the learned Distsict Judge on March 25, 1965, and also to pay costs on that date. On March 25, 1965 the respondent did nto appear but his counsel Shri Vidya Sagar who was present in Court made a statement that he had no instruction in the matter. The Court ordered ...
Jai Lal Vs. the Punjab State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi118
(1) Plaintiff Jai Lal a contractor, purchased certain trees in the forest In Shamalt -Deh of Village Jhajha of February 15,1958 for Rs. 1,005, when the plaintiff went to remove the trees which had been cut the Forest Ranger Chail stopped him on the ground that the trees belonged to Punjab State and the Nagar Panchayat, the vendor of the trees, had no right to sell the same without the sanction and approval of the forest authorities. The plaintiff served a ntoice on the Panchayat but the latter assured him that it had such a right. The plaintiff again started the work of removal of trees on February 26,1958, but the forest authorities did nto permit him to do so. The said authorities ultimately on February 28, 1958. Confiscated the entire wood lying stacked on the road side. The Panchayat then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab challenging the act of the forest department which was allowed on October 16, 1958. The High Court of Punjab decided that Rule 10 framed under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »