Delhi Court February 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 1 of about 14 results (0.014 seconds)Shafiq-ud-dIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1536
ORDERI.D. Dua, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 526, Criminal P.C. for the transfer of the case State v. Shafiq-ud-din from the Court of Shri K.N. Joshi, Magistrate 1st Class, to some toher Court of competent jurisdiction. Ntoice of this application was given on 9.2.1968 and it wag directed that a copy of the application be also Bent to the learned Magistrate for his comments. No comments have been forwarded by the learned Magistrate for reasons best known to him. The learned Counsel for the State bas, however, submitted that on similar grounds, an application for transfer of the case was made in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and in that Court, the learned Magistrate had submitted his comments. Those very comments, submits Shri V.D. Misra, be considered to be the comments in regard to the application presented in this Court. I have, thereforee, as agreed at the bar, proceeded to dispose of the application on the basis of the comments submitted by the learned Magist...
Tag this Judgment!The Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co., Ltd. Vs. the Company Law Board ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi252
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated January 23, 1967 of the Company Law Board which was reaffirmed by a further order dated June 6, 1967 whereby the extension of the managing agency term of Messrs. Govan Brtohers (Rampur) Private Limited was refused.2. The petitioner company is a public limited company which had Messrs. Govan Brtohers (Rampur) Private Limited as its managing agents from about 1943 when they were appointed as such for a period of 20 years. In or about July, 1946, the Dalmia assumed control of the said managing agent company and the managing agent company then had four Directors namely V. H. Dalmia, Lalita Dalmia, N. H. Dalmia and M. H. Dalmia the first named being also the Managing Director. A first information report was lodged in November, 1953 in a Delhi Court in respect of offence alleged to have been committed in 1946-47 under sections 120-B of 409 of the Indian Penal Code by, inter alia, V. H. Dalmai aforesaid. But it is nto d...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi255; 4(1968)DLT419; ILR1968Delhi32
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The following two questions regarding the scope and construction of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, have been referred to Full Bench :-'1. Where the annual land revenue of the land holding of a landowner exceeds Rs. 125/- per year, is his entire landed holding to be deemed automatically to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, or is it only the portion of the holding which exceeds the land, the annual land revenue of which amounts to Rs. 125/- per year, which is to be deemed to have been so transferred and vested? 2. Is the right, title and interest 0f a landowner who holds land the annual land revenue of which exceeds Rs. 125/- per year to be deemed automatically to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free form all encumbrances on the enforcement of the Abolition Act, or shall it be deemed to have been so transferred and vested after the compensation pa...
Tag this Judgment!Aya Singh Tirlok Singh Vs. Munshi Ram Amta Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi249; 4(1968)DLT310
(1) Aya Singh, defendant in the trial Court, presented an appeal in this Court from an order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 18-9-1967 allowing the appeal of Munish Ram plaintiff and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, remanding the case back to the Court of First instance for re-decision. By mistake an appeal was presented in this Court as a regular second appeal from a decree on which court-fee of Rs. 686.30 Paise was affixed. The office ntoe shows that an inquiry was made from the counsel for the appellant as to how a regular second appeal lay against an order of remand. To this the counsel replied that the appeal may be treated as an appeal from order and may accordingly be registered as first appeal from order. The office, without Realizing that it was, as a matter of fact, a second appeal, for it was the second appellate jurisdiction of this Court which was being invoked, registered the appeal as an F. A. O. Instead of an S. A. O. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bachan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT426
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) The main question involved in this revision petition is as to whether the Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1941, is still in force or ceased to be operative at the expiry of six months from the date of its promulgation or from the date of publication of His Majesty's Order in Council called 'The India and Burma (Termination of Emergency) Order, 1946, in the Gazette of India. Extraordinary. This question has risen under the following circumstances' (2) One Bachan Singh was enlisted as a constable in the Delhi Armed Police with effect from September 16, 1963. On September 28, he was found to be absent. A ntoice da'ed the 5th October, 1963, was sent to him by registered post requiring him to report for duty in the 'Lines' within five days of its receipt The ntoice was received by him on October 9, 1963, and he did report himself for duty at 3.15 P. M. on October t4, 1963. He, however, again absented himself from duty , on October 14, 1963. A demiofficial let...
Tag this Judgment!Tulja Ram Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT509; ILR1968Delhi438
D. Dua, C.J. (1) Tulja Ram petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the sentences imposed on him by the Special Judge, Delhi, which have since been affirmed by this Court and by the Supreme Court, have been served out by the petitioner and, thereforee, he is at the present moment illegally detained in the Central Prison, Tehar, New Delhi.(2) From the return filed by the Superintendent, Central Prison. Tehar, it is obvious that the petitioner was convicted in three cases of corruption viz., cases Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1961. In case Mo. 25 of 1961, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 5/5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 200, or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months: under section 5/5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for tw...
Tag this Judgment!K.D. Kohli Vs. K.K. Sondhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi231; 1968CriLJ1271
ORDER(1) This Criminal Reference made by Shri O. N. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, arises out of an application under Section 435 and 438, Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the petitioner Shri K. D. Kohli against the order dated 11-9-1967 made by Shri N. C. Jain, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner to the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C., was dismissed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has recommended that the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 145. Cr. P. C., be quashed.(2) The facts as reported by the learned Judge are that on 22-12-1965 Shri K. K. Sondhi, Manager, Gwalior Ptoteries, filed a complaint in the Court of Shri N. L. Kakkar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parliament Street, New Delhi, alleging that the Gwalior Ptoteries of which he was the Manager, had godowns and stores in the same premises in which the premises of Messrs. Printers' Hou...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Administration, Delhi Vs. S.P. Kohli, Deputy Municipal Engineer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT632
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This appeal under S. 47 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the State and is directed against the judgment and order of the Special Judge Delhi acquitting the respondent Shri Sat Pal Kohli of the charge for offences under section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) read with section 5 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Ii of 1947. (2) During the years 1961 and 19 '2 the respondent was employed as Deputy Municipal Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. One Shri Satish Kapoor who will hereafter be referred to as the complainant held two contracts with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, one for providing brick pavement and 6* open surface drain in Mandhari Colony opposite the Naaz Cinema and the toher for providing dry bricks on edge flooring and 6' open surface drain in the Bhogal Coolie Camp, Pant Nagar, Delhi The work in Namdhari Colony was to be completed by 20th Febrbary, 1962 but it was actually completed on 28th March, 1962. There was thus a dela...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. R.K. Baweja Judicial Secretary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi328
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The petitioner, by this Writ Petition, seeks to quash the order dated 21/3/1967 of the Judicial Secretary, Delhi Administration, Delhi passed in case No. 6/97 whereby the order dated December 19, 1966 of the Competent Authority was set aside as being illegal.(2) The facts which will resolve the controversy in this case lie in a narrow compass. By some date in 1959, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 had become owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 770 situate in Nai Sarak, Delhi, the first, second and third floors of which were in the occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. On 30/9/1961, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 filed an application No. 227 of 1962, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of sub-letting. Upon an application made under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent in Court. Arrears of Rent were nto deposited and, it is nto disputed,that arrears of rent right from the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Chuni Singh Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India Through Secy. Minis ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi196
ORDER(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1398 of 1967 and 1491 of 1967. Since the learned counsel are agreed that the decision rendered in Civil Writ No. 1398 of 1967 will govern the toher writ petitions, it is sufficient to recite the facts of Civil Writ No. 1398 of 1967. (2) The petitioners claim to be the dealers in barley and they say that on the date of the petition they possessed large quantities of 'Ghat' and barley and by reason of the impugned order No. F. 6 (56)/66-DCS (P) , published in Delhi Gazette Extraordinary, dated 21st August, 1967, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1956, they; have been incapacitated from dealing with the said stocks. The petitioners further allege that they applied for permits for disposing of their stocks which have been declined and in view of the impugned Ntoification, dated 19th August, 1967, published in the Gazette dated 21st August, 1967, the Ministry of Railways, are no long...
Tag this Judgment!