Delhi Court November 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.023 seconds)Vidya Parkash Vs. Municipal Committee, Simla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT283
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The sole question for decision in this petition is whether the building of the petitioner at Simla which is in existence from bifore the year 1938 but with respect to which no fair rent has been fixed under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is to be assessed by respondent No. 1, Municipal Committee Simla, to a tax payable by the owner on building on the annual value as ascertained according to the definition in Section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 or as restricted by the definition of fair rent enacted in Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. (2) We may, thereforee, read the relevant portions of Section 3(1) (b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which are as follows :- 'S. 3. Definition.- In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,- (1) 'annual value' means- (a) ........................................
Tag this Judgment!Chhajju Ram Vs. Bhuri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi273; 5(1969)DLT372
1. The short point which, in the final analysis, requires determination in this regular first appeal is whether Smt Bhuri had become the absolute owner of the property in question.2. The following pedigree table may be reproduced for understanding the relationship between the parties :(See Pedigree Table on next page)Shri Chhajju Ram son of Shri Nathu Par-shad instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the alienation by gift of one-half portion of house No. 3472 described in the plaint by defendant No. 1 in favor of Subhash Chandra and Suresh Chandra, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, by means of a registered deed dated 26-7-1957, is null and void, being against Hindu Law and that it should nto affect the reversionary rights and interests of the plaintiff after Smt. Bhuri's death or remarriage. In the plaint, it has been very clearly stated that defendant No. 1 has a widow's estate in one half of the house No. 3472, but it is claimed that this estate was acquir...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT31
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This case has been forwarded by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Delhi with a recommendation that the proceedings initiated against Madan Mohan under section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, be quashed (2) It appears that on receipt of same information that the petitioner Madan Mohan was keeping a Bengali girl at his residence 10-X, Chitter Gupta Road for purposds of immoral traffic, the D. S. P. Pahar Ganj organized a raid party and actually recovered a Bengali girl. named Rekha alias Shanti from the petitioner's house. These facts according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, do nto make out any case for a breach of peace or disturbing the public tranquility, with the result that section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, must be held to be inapplicable. Whether or nto an offence under the Supression of Immoral Traffic in Woman and Girls Act has been committed is a question with which I am nto concerned in the present proceedings. The learned Public Prose...
Tag this Judgment!Jhanua Vs. Dharam Dass
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT121
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This second appeal raises the interesting question whether a father's half-brtoher is the father's brtoher within the meaning of section 15 I (e), Thirdly, and the husband's brtoher within the meaning of section 15(2)(b). Secondly, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The trial Court held that such a half- brtoher was entitled to pre-empt, while the lower appellate Court held that he was nto. (2) The plaintiff in the suit is Jhanda son of Zilam He filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for pre-emption against Dharam Das to whom the lands in dispute had been sold by Jodha and Bhauni, sons of Rosa. and by Shivju, wife of the said Rosa. Rosa was also a son of Zalam but from a different wife. It was alleged in the plaint that the land in suit had been sold by Jodha, Bhauni and Shivju, hereinafter collectively referred to as 'vendors', for an ostensible sale price of Rs. 1,500.00 which was nto actually paid nor fixed in good faith and that the market value of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jijai Kumar Vs. Indian Coffee House
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT296
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This is a civil revision under sub-section (5) of saction 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1849 (Act 111 of 1949) against the judgment dated August 9, 1968, of the Appellate Authority constituted under sub-section (1) (a) of the said section of the said Act. The appellate Authority who is the District Judge, Simla District, Simla, allowed the application of the respondent herein which had been filed in the Court of the Rent Controller under section 13(3) (a)(i) of the said Act for the eviction of the petitioner herein from the top floor of the building known as North Brook Terrace, The Mall, Simla. (2) The undisputed facts are that the third, fourth a fifth floors of the North Brook Terrace were on tenancy with the respondent society. The fifth floor of the building opens on the Mall Road and the society was running a coffee house on this floor. The fourth and third floors were being utilized by the society as its kitchen and godown. The sixth floor w...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Vs. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT261
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This regular second appeal under section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order of the learned Senior-Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers affirming on appeal the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, dated 10th March, 1965, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from evicting him from the flat in dispute in execution of a decree for eviction passed against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by the Kent Controller, Delhi. The suit was contested by defendant No 1, the toher two defendants remaining absent and proceedings against them bing ex-parte. (2) It is unnecessary to narrate all the facts leading to the conversy in question, because in this appeal, the direct contest only centres round the construction of sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereafter called the Act) and facts relevant for this purpose alone need be stated. (3) The pleadings of the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Amir-jamia and ors. Vs. Desharath Raj
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi202
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) By his judgment under appeal, dated 10th April, 1968 in Cw 217 of 1968, Hardy J. quashed the order dated 14th December, 1967 passed by the appellants, who are the relevant office bearers of Jamia Milla Islamia, an Educational Institution deemed to be University under the University Grants Commission Act, 1966, expelling the respondent who was a student of M. A. (Pre) class and debarred him from entering the Campus of the Jamia Millia, mainly on the ground that no show cause ntoice or an opportunity of submitting a written representation or any oral hearing was given to the respondent before the order of expulstion was made against him. Since then, we were informed at the Bar that the respondent was allowed to appear for the M. A. previous examination and he has passed the same. The learned counsel for the respondent made it clear that the appellants do nto now contend that the respondent should be again put back into the M.A. previous class. Indeed, he is said to h...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Dass Vs. Nirmal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi149
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the following order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 9-1-1968: 'PRESENT counsel for the parties. Shri B. N. Sharma, Accountant of the Punjab National Bank has appeared. The plaintiff did nto bring the money yesterday and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 as searching fees etc. as claimed by the witnesses. Today the witnesses have been examined and at the close of the evidence of the witness the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 50.00 to the witness but he has declined to do so. He states that he has nto brought the money today. He is ordered to deposit the same tomorrow positively and failing the same, the suit would stand dismissed. In case the plaintiff deposits the amount of Rs. 50.00 then the case will be taken on 31-1-68 for the statement of the plaintiff and for defense evidence on 24-2-1968.'(2) The relief claimed is that the impugned order be set asid...
Tag this Judgment!Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Limited Vs. Wearwell Industries and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT469
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 16/5/1967 refusing the grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff-appellant. The application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff before the Additional District Judge, though made under Order 39, Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code ., was actually cov.ered by Order 39, Rule 2 alone inasmuch as the suit by the plaintiff was for restraining the defendants from committing 'toher injury of any kind' within the meaning of Rule 2(1). The injury complained of was the harm caused to the plaintiff by the sale of deceptiv.e goods by the defendants. The order of the learned Additional District Judge was apparently, thereforee, passed under Order 39, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and nto under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code It was thereforee, appealable under Order 43, Civil Procedure Code .(2) Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal against the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Through Chief Commissioner, Delhi State Vs. Sobha Singh ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT464; ILR1969Delhi120
Om Parkash, J. (1) This revision-petition, by the defendant, is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The defendant. Union of India, had executed an agreement on the 8th October, 1945, in favor of the plaintiff, to grant the plaintiff perpetual lease of a plto of land on certain terms and conditions. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, claiming the for'1. It be declared that all the buildings constructed on the plto of land mentioned in paragraph 4 of this plaint were and are in accordance with the agreement to Lease dated the 8/10/1945, the there has been no departure or contravention of the terms of said agreement of lease; that the plaintiff had fully complied with the covenants of the said agreement and that the buildings were complete in all respects on the 8th October, when the agreement to lease was executed by the defendant; that the said agreement related to the buildings as they existed on the site on the date of its execution, and therefor...
Tag this Judgment!