Delhi Court July 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.
Jetha Singh Vs. Chaman Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi122
ORDER(1) The petition is defendant in a suit brought against him by the respondent under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 13,600 on account of principal and interest on the basis of a prontoe executed by him in favor of the respondent for Rs. 10,000. By his order dated the 6th February, 1967, the learned Subordinate Judge granted leave to the petitioner to appear and defend the suit on the condition that the petitioner deposited in cash by way of security the suit amount of Rs. 13,600 together with estimated costs of Rs. 1600 on or before 20th February, 1967. (2) The petitioner has come up in revision against the aforesaid order of the learned Subordinate Judge. His grievances is that the learned Subordinate Judge having held that the petitioner's defense raise triable issues had no jurisdiction to require him to deposit the entire amount in suit with costs as a condition for permission to defend the suit. (3) Perusal of the order of the learned Subordina...
Fikson Trading Company Vs. Qamaruddin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT154
H. Hardy, J.(1) The petitioner Fikson Trading Company was plaintiff in a suit instituted by it in the Court of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi seeking a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner of the plto in dispute and that the defendant had no title to or interest therein. It was alleged that the plaintiff was in possession of the plto in dispute in its own right-and had put up strnctures upon it at its own expense and that.the defendant-respondent was wrongly alleging that he was the owner of the superstructures and bad let out the premises to the plaintiff. (2) It appears that before the plaintiff brought its suit, the defendant had instituted a suit against it in the Court of Small Causes Delhi for recovery of Rs. 350.00on account of arrears of rent in respect of the property in dispute. The defendant thereforee, while denying the plaintiff's claim in the suit for declaration, raised a preliminary objection and alleged that the suit was liable to be stayed under...
Sham Dass Chawla Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT593
I.D. Dua, C.J. and T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) Sham Dass, petitioner in the present proceedings, instituted in August, 1965 a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Delhi Development Authority from determining the lease of the plaintiff in respect of plto No. 41, Ara Kashan Basti, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Pahar Ganj, New Dtlhi. The prayer clause was couched in the following words:- 'IT is, thereforee, prayed that a dacree for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any penalty or damages for non-ereclion of the building or mi-use of the plto bearing 'No. 4!, Basti Ara Kashan, Desh Bandhu Gupla Road, Pahar Gar.j, New Delhi and cancelling the lease of the plaintiff in respect of the afon - said plto be passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. Any toher relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the plaintiff as against the defendant with costs of the suit.'It appears that the defendant raised nn objecti...
Bhagwanti and ors. Vs. Attar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT553
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This case discloses a lamentable stage of affairs in regard to the manner in which some of the Magistrates in Delhi deal with a criminal complaint. On 4th December 1965. Atlar Singh applied to the District Magistrate, Delhi. stating that Smt. Bhagwanti and her sons Shri Prabh Singh and Sujit Singh had been pressing him to vacate the premises occued by him as their tenant in Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On has failure to do so, they had threatened to get a false criminal case filed against him through somebody outside Delhi. A case had since been intstituted against him under section 506, Indian Penal Code, and nonjbailable warrants for his arrest had been received at Delhi and Attar Singh was released on bail by the Additional District Magistrate, Dalhi, on 29 the November 1965 with the direction to appear on 15th December 1965 in the Court of Shri 0. P. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Class, Karala Camp, Pishore District Shiv Puri (M.P). This ca?e was alleged to be absolutely false a...
Dhani Devi Vs. Tulsi Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1967
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT293
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner invoking buth Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22nd November, 1966. passed by the Sub-Divisional Judge, Bilaspur District (Himachal Pradesh). Subsequently, a statement was made before Hardy J. on 19th June, 1967 that this petition may be dealt with only under Article 227 of the Constitution. (2) The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent had obtained an order for payment of maintenance by the respondent from the Nyaya Panchayat Lakhanour This order was made under Section 57(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act. By this sub-section applications for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be heard and decided by the Nyaya Panchayat. After this order had been passed, the Nyaya Panchayat sent the order to the Sub-Divisional Judge, Bilaspur, for execution. This was done under Sectio...
Parkash Dev Chopra Vs. the New Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi244
Khanna, J (1) This regular first appeal filed by Parkash Dev Chopra defendant No. 3. Is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, first class. Delhi Whereby he awarded a preliminary decree for recovery of R. 31,960/- with interest from the date of the institution of the suit till realization by sale of the mortgaged property is favor of the New Bank of India Limited plaintiff against the appellant. Devi Das Chopra and Sons Defendant No. 1 and Devi Das Chopra defendant No 2.The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 31,960/- by sale of mortgaged property which was brought by the respondent-bank through its principal officer Pran Nath Abrol against Devi Das Chopra and Sons, Devi Das Chopra and Parkash Dev Chopra. Parkash Dev Chopra is the son of Devi Das Chopra. According to the allegations of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is a joint Hindu family firm of which Devi Das Chopra is the Karta. Defendant No. 3. Who is a member of the joint family was wor...
Kakoo Shah Uttam Chand and ors. Vs. Kamla Wati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi120
Dua, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal directed against the judgment and decree of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for the recovery of Rs. 15,900/- comprising of principal and interest claimed on the basis of an equitable mortgage of a house situated in Kucha Chelan, Delhi, effected by Deep Chand deceased, father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and husband of defendant No. 1 and by Inder Dev Upadhyaya, defendant No. 4. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the mortgages by deposit of title-deeds have nto been proved, the documents Exhibits P. Y. and P. 13 being inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.2. The only question canvassed before us on appeal in the circumstances lies within a very narrow compass and is confined to the question whether the mortgages in question were effected by means of documents requiring registration. 3. According to the allegations in the plaint, on 6-8-1952, Shri I. D. Upadhyaya and Shri Deep Chand, father...
Madan Lal Vs. Hira Singh Pal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi110; 4(1968)DLT3
ORDER(1) This election petition under Sections 81 and 85 of Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was filed by Madan Lal resident of Village Parhech, Post Office Ghanahatti, Tehsil Arki, District Mahasu whereby he challenged the election of the respondent as a member of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 9-Arki Assembly Constituency during the last General Election on the ground that the nomination papers filed by the petitioner had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer Kasumpti.(2) The petitioner alleged that he was a candidate for a seat in the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 9-Arki Assembly Constituency and that his name was entered as an elector at Seriall No. 504 in Part No. 12 of the Electoral Roll for the said Constituency. The respondent and a few tohers including Shri Hari Das were toher candidates for the same seat. The nomination papers for election from the said Constituency were to be filed on 20...
Madan Lal Chadha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT530
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) A case against Sardar Singh, Satinder Singh and Ram Rattan, under (2) Shri Rajinder Jain Additional District Magistrate (Central), after obtaining comments of Shri A. C. Kher, by an order, dated March 20, 1967, transferred the case to the Court of Shri V. N. Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Headquarters). No ntoice of the transfer application was given and reasons for withdrawing the case from the file of Shri Kher were nto rccorded. The order read as under :- '20th March 1967. Applicant present. Heard and gone through the comments and record. Case be transferred to the Court of Shri V. N. Chaturvedi S. D. M. (HQ). He is directed to appear before that Court on 23rd March 1967.' (3) Shri Chaturvei.after the case was made over to him, heard arguments, on March 27. l967. and fixed March 31. 1967, for judgment. On that date, the judgment could nto be pronounced as Madan Lal, who had been one of the prosecution witnesses. filed a revision petition against the order...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthalia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi16
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) This order will dispose of Income-tax Cases Nos.4 of 67, 9 of 67 and 10 of 67 relating to the assessment years 1952-53, 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively. Except for the difference in the amounts of interest allowed as a deduction to the assessed under Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and which deduction is sought to be challenged by the revenue there is no difference in the facts of these cases. It is sufficient, thereforee, if I confine myself to the facts of Income-tax Case No.4 of 1967.(2) The assessed a registered firm purchased a property in Lahore known as 'Nedous Htoel' for Rs.46 lakhs. For acquiring the said property, the assessed took interest bearing loans of about Rs.30 lakhs from Bharat Bank Limited, Lahore, and of about Rs.18 lakhs from Raja Rana of Jubbal. In the return of income filed by the assessed it inter alias claimed that the income from the property be computed u/s 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and a sum of Rs.1,00,723/-, paya...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›