Delhi Court October 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.022 seconds)Roop NaraIn Goela and ors. Vs. Krishna Devi Bagadia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT127
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) Krishna Devi Bagadia, the. landlord of the House in question, filed a petition for eviction against the appellants. Eviction was claimed under section 14(1)(b) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and by order dated February 22, 1968, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowed the petition on the grounds that tenant Roop Narain Goela had sublet, assigned or toherwise parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in favor of Mangey Ram and Parkash Chand, appellants No. 2 and 3 respectively, without the written consent of the landlord and that tenant Roop Narain Goela had built, a residential house in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The appellants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which was dismissed on March Ii, 1968, in liming. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that the only question raised by the appellants was about the necessity of a ntoice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy befo...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushalya Vs. Mangtoo and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT151
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) In this second appeal from a decree passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge Kangra. at Dharamsala, learned counsel for the apellant has raised several contentions but the real controversy centres round the question as to whether the law that should govern the decision of the case is contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956 which came into force on 17th June, 1956. If sub-section (1) applies then the appellant succeeds and respondent No- I who was plaintiff in the the trial Court fails. On the toher hand if sub-section (2) applies then the appeal fails and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is entitled to a decree being passed in his favor. (2) There is no dispute as to facts. One Nihala grand-father of Mangtu was the last male holder of certain land situate in a village in Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. His widow Smt. Orku gto it by inheritance. Her marriage with Nihala was a second marriage, her fir...
Tag this Judgment!Daljit Singh Harnam Singh Vs. K.P. Hati, Asst. Collector of Customs, N ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi263; 1969CriLJ1127
ORDER1. The petitioner has applied under Section 526 Cr. P. C., for the transfer of case No. 2/3 of 1967 (K. P. Hati v. Daljit Singh) pending in the Court of Shri Madan Jha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi. The case mentioned above arises out of a complaint under Section. 135 of the Customs Act, and according to the averments in the transfer application which are relevant for our present purpose, on 4-9-1968, the applicant along with his counsel appeared in the Court of the learned Magistrate at 3.30 P.M. which was the time fixed for further cross-examination of P. W. 2, Shri P. N. Suri. The counsel for the accused was informed by the Reader of the Court that the learned Magistrate had adjourned the Court at 3 P. M. and left instructions for the counsel to wait till his return. At about 4.45 P.M., the learned Magistrate came back and the case was called. The counsel for the complainant requested for adjournment on the ground that it was nto convenient for the Customs Authorities t...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Electrical and anr. Vs. Victor Cables Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi129; 5(1969)DLT129
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This is a defendants' revision and is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge Ii Class, Delhi dated 28th April, 1967 declining to set aside his earlier order by means of which the defendants' defense had been struck off. The Court below has observed in the impugned order that according to the record the defendants had done their best to delay the case by nto filing better particulars as ordered by the Court. More than four adjourenments had been granted to the defendants for this purpose, but they failed to do so and everytime adjournment was shought on one pretext or the toher. No ground having been made out for setting aside the earliar order striking off the defense this application was dismissed. (2) Before me, the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has submitted that the order striking off the defense was wholly unjustified and was indeed made contrary to the procedure prescribed. On this premise, it was contended that the order striki...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Pershad Vs. Des Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi6
I.D. Dua, J.(1) This revision is directed against the order dated 29-7-1968 of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Delhi, granting leave to the defendant-petitioner in this Court to defend the suit instituted on the basis of a promissory ntoe dated 27-6-1967 under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the condition that he furnishes suitable security in the sum of Rs. 6,200.00(2) It appears that there were three defendants against whom the suit was instituted, but one of the defendants remained absent and the proceedings against him were ex- parte. The toher defendant denied his signatures on the promissory ntoe and on. account of this denial, he was granted leave to defend the suit without any conditions. The petitioner in this Court admitted his signatures on the promissory ntoe but pleaded that the promissory ntoe in question was for consideration only to the extent of Rs. 2,700.00, although the amount mentioned therein was Rs. 5,000.00. The Court below has observed that the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT45
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State against the decision of the learned Special Judge acquitting the accused of a charge for the offence of criminal misconduct in discharge of offcial duty punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal was originally heard by a Division Bench consisting of two of us, namely. Hardy and Deshpande Jj The arguments at the Bar before the Division Bench were limited only to the aspects of the case which were dealt with in the judgment of the learned Special Judge under appeal. In writing the judgment, however, the Division Bench had to consider several toher aspects of the case including the following questions of law :- '(1) 'What is the precise nature and effect of the presumption raised by section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act (2) Whether the High Court can convict the respondent under sections 161 and 165, Indian Penal Code, though he was acquitted by learned Special Judge of the Charge purported to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. Smarts Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT245
I. D. Dua, C.J.(1) This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 12/8/1968 allowing amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code. It was stated by the plaintiff that the mistake sought to be remedied was merely typographical or clerical in nature. The amendment, it may be pointed out, was sought to vary the number of the chit from S. A. 15/25 to S. A. 15/24. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, agreed with the plaintiff's submission that the mistake was merely typographical and clerical in nature. So holding, the amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 40 as costs. I am informed by the learned counsel for the respondent appearing in this Court that two defendants have accepted the costs and acquiesced in the impugned order and one defendant was given up.(2) The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner in this Court very strongly argues that by...
Tag this Judgment!Premi Alias Prem Das Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT385
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This criminal revision was received from jail and was admitted to regular hearing by my brtoher Tatachari J. on August 12, 1968. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had already been convicted for the same offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla and should nto have thereforee, been convicted again for the same offence by the learned Magistrate, first class. Kasumpti. Although the petitioner's appeal had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu on the ground that it was barred by time, my learned brtoher was of the view that the prohibition against conviction of the petitioner for a second time for the same offence being an absolute prohibition the contention should have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge regardless of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. (2) In answer to the ntoice issued to the State Mr. K. C. Pandit has appeard on its behalf and has taken me through the files of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurudasmal, Supdt. of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi330; ILR1969Delhi426
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. On the complaint dated 30-1-1968 by Shri S. Vanchinath, Income-tax Officer, Section X (Central), Bombay, against the petitioner company alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 409 and 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, a case for investigation was registered by the first respondent and investigation thereon started by the second respondent acting under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act).The petitioner has challenged the legality of this investigation on the following grounds, viz.,(1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment is nto a police force belonging to any State within the meaning of Entry 80 of the Union list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and, thereforee, they could nto function under the Act. (2) Assuming that the Delhi Special Police Establishment was a police force for the Chief Commissioner's province, later the Part C State of Delhi, and thus able ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Khalil Kacherim
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1970CriLJ417; 1983(13)ELT941(Del); ILR1968Delhi505
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26 (2) The following facts led up to the filingf the writ petition. On 14/8/1967 the respondent arrived from overseas by an Air France flight at Palam Airport, New Delhi. Upon arrival at the airport, he requested the Customs Officer on duty to keep in customs custody a packet which was declared by him to contain four smaller packets containing diamonds of the value of approximately $ 34,000. Thereupon the Customs Officer on duty issued a detention receipt staling that one packet containing four smaller packets said to contain diamonds of the value of $ 34,000 sealed with the passenger's own seal and the customs seal over his signature had been received. It was further stated on the face of this receipt by the Customs Officer 'declared re-export allowed' and 'declared-pending re-export out of India.' title respondent thereafter left for Bombay from where he returned on 24/8/1967 on which date he was to f...
Tag this Judgment!