Delhi Court November 1968 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.
Pajnu Mal and ors. Vs. S.L. Keshwari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT264
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This appeal under s. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 questions the correctness of the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 1st December, 1967 dismissing the appeal of the present appellants from the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 17th September, 1967, ordering eviction of the tenants in favor of Smt. S.L. Keshwani on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for the residence of the owner landlady and her family members dependent upon her.(2) The eviction proceedings were initiated on two grounds, but the toher ground of subletting was nto sustained.(3) On appeal, it was conceded on behalf of the tenants that the premises had been let out to them for residential purposes and also that the landlady was the owner thereof, with the result that the only question for determination was whether the landlady required the premises in dispute for her own residence and the residence of the members of her family dependent on her....
Malagar Vs. Shiv Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT456
S.N. Andley, J.(1) 0N April 16, 1959, the appellants filed an application under section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Act No.15 of 1954) for acquisition on payment of compensation of the right, title and interest of the land owners in the land of the tenancy alleged to be held by them under the land owner. This application was filed before the C. O. Bilaspur, who, by his order dated December 30, 1961, held the appellants to be tenants and granted them proprietory rights in the land in dispute. (2) On appeal, the learned District Judge, by his order dated August 18, 1965, held that the appellants being co-sharers with the respondents could nto be tenants of the land in question and, thereforee, he allowed the appeal. (3) The short facts of the case are that the parties to this litigation are the co-owners of the land in question and this land belongs to the extent of 3/80 shares to the appellants and to the extent of 77/80 shares ...
Hans Raj Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi183
Om Parkash, J. (1) This order will dispose of three criminal Appeals (Nos. 79, 88 and 97 of 1968) which have arisen out of the same incident. The incident had occurred in the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,. on the 31st October, 1966, at about 12 -30 P.M. The prosecution case was that Om Parkash, Public Witness I, accompanied by his wife's sister's husband. Ram Nath, Public Witness 4, had, on the 31st October, 1966, gone to Tis Hazari Courts, to hear the orders in his appeal, filed against his conviction under sections 379/75, Indian Penal Code , pending in the Court of Shri Om Parkash, Additional Sessions Judge and that btoh Om Parkash and Ram Nath were sitting on a bench lying outside the Court when Nand Kishore and Hans Raj had come there. Nand Kishore had threatened Om Parkash that he would teach him a lesson as the latter had gto his brtoher convicted. Nand Kishore had, then, taken out the dagger, Exhibit P/1, and had attacked Om Parkash. Om Parkash had run for his life into the court-r...
Omesh Saigal and anr. Vs. R.K. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi214; 1969CriLJ896; 5(1969)DLT24; ILR1969Delhi110
S.K. Kapur, J. 1. Upon a report received from the Additional District Magistrate that Shri R. K. Dalmia has committed contempt of Court, a notice was issued to him on 15th October. 1968. The circumstances that led to the report may now be set out.2. Shri Omesh Saigal, Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, made a report on 27th July, 1968, to the Deputy Commissioner that he had a case (State v. Kewalramani and twelve others) fixed in his Court for 27th July, 1968; that the case was taken up immediately after lunch when the accused were ordered to be released on bail; that according to the Sessions Court the file was sent to Shri N, C. Jain, Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, for consideration of the surety bonds for release of the accused persons; that by about 5.20 P. M. the surety bonds of 12 accused persons had been accepted but no surety was present for the 13th accused; that at about 5.35 P. M. when 'Mr. Badri Nath, Mr. Ramesh Chander, Magistrate 1st Class and myself were sittin...
Bhan Singh Vs. S. Kanwaljit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi349
ORDER1. Six persons instituted a suit in the Court of Shri S. C. Ahuja, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi for a declaration and permanent injunction. An application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the work of S. Bhan Singh, plaintiff No. 1, as Secretary of defendant No. 1, the Prince Bus Service, during the pendency of the suit. It was alleged that S. Kanwaljit Singh defendant was interfering with the work of plaintiff No. 1 as Secretary of the Association. This prayer was contested and the learned Subordinate Judge trying the suit considered it proper to restrain defendant No. 1 from interfering with plaintiff No. 1 in the discharge of his duties as Secretary of the Association in question. The defendant was also restrained from disturbing the possession of plaintiff No. 1 of the office located in room No. 5 where, according to him, he a...
i.D. Malik Vs. Duli Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT175
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The appellant is a land-lord, who biought a suit against respondent No. 1 who was his tenant to restrain him from using the leased premises for the purpose of a Flour Mill. The injunction was granted by the trial Court, but refused by the lower Appellate Court.(2) It is common ground that the leased premises have been occupied by the tenant from the inception of the tenancy in 1957 onwards for the purpose of a Karyana (Grocery) shop. The lease was first given to D.W. 1. Hardwari Lal, and respondent No. 1, Duli Chand, in 1957. It was continued in favor of respondent No. 1 alone in 1960hen Hardwari Lal left the premises. The land-lord's case as pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint was that the premises was let out for the purpose of running a Karyana business and that the tenant was nto to start any toher business in the premises without the consent of the landlord. The land-lord complained that the tenant's proposal to use the premises for a Floor Mill was ...
Om Parkash Vs. Roshan Lal Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT210
I.D. Dua, J.(1) This is a second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act directed against the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd July, 1968 dismissing the present appellant's appeal and maintaining the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 15th December, 1967, by means of which amendment of the written statement filed by the respondant in this Court was allowed by introducing a plea of want of ntoice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The order which is described by the appellant in this Court to be arbitrary so far as relevant, reads thus :- 'I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, it would be quite just and expedient to allow the amendment in question on payment of costs amounting to Rs. 25.00' (2) The appellant's learned counsel submits that this order does nto show any reasons for exercising the discretion in favor of the respondent in the proceedings which started as far hack as May, 1964. It...
Nawal Kishore Tara Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi198; 1969CriLJ881
ORDER1. On November 1, 1961, Shri M. L. Zutshi, Food Inspector, went to the shop of Shri Naval Kishore, petitioner, and purchased a quantity of chillies powder for purpose of analysis. On one of the samples of that article of food being sent to the Public Analyst, for analysis, it was found to be adulterated with artificial coal tar dye.2. Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Municipal Prosecutor, filed a complaint against the petitioner. On the petitioner being tried by Shri Jagmohan. Magistrate First Class, Delhi, he was convicted for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was fined Rs. 400/- only. The appeal filed by him against this conviction and sentence was heard by Shri R, N. Agarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and was dismissed on February 26, 1966. Thereafter the present revision was filed in this Court.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgments of the courts belo...
Revisional Criminal Nawal Kishore Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT336; ILR1969Delhi356
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) On November 1,1961, Shri M. L. Zutshi, Food Inspector, went to the shop of Shri Naval Kishore, petitioner and purchased a quantity of chillies powder for purpose of analysis. On one of the samples of that article of food being sent to the Public Analyst, for analysis, it was found to be adulterated with artificial coal tar dye.(2) Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Municipal Prosecutor, filed a complaint against the petitioner. On the petitioner being tried by Shri Jagmohan, Magistrate First Class, Delhi, he was convicted for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was fined Rs. 400.00 only. The appeal filed by him against this conviction and sentence was heard by Shri R. N. Agarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and was dismissed on February 26, 1966. Thereafter the present revision was filed in this Court.(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgments of t...
Kamla Devi Vs. Raghubir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT159
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has by his order dated 13th September, 1968 forwarded the record of the case Raghbir Singh v. Kamla Devi ect. initiated under section 145, Cr. P.O., at the instance of Raghbir Singh. The learned Additional Seasions Judge has recommended that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shri V.N. Chaturvedi, dated 25th May, 1968 be set aside and the said learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate be directed to refer the matter of possession to the civil Court as envisaged by section 146, Cr. P.C. (2) It appears that Raghbir Singh, by means of an application dated 7th March, 1968, under section 145, Cr. P.C. moved the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Jama Masjid) Delhi complainging that Smt. Kamla Devi one of his neighbours, residing in house No. 433. Gali Pharwali, Chatta Lal Mian had on 6th February, 1968, with the active assistance and co-operation of 14 toher persons, who were made respondents by him in his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »