Delhi Court February 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.017 seconds)Tara Chand Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT537
ORDER from the Police report dated- of P.S. Tugh Rd. it appears that while the public tranquillity in Delhi is disturbed, you Tara Chand son of Johari Lal at- which is a wrongful act so provocative that it may occasion breach of the peace or public tranquillity; 2.I am, thereforee, of the view that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquillity of the commission of any offence or for public safety. Accordingly, I under Sub section 3 of Section 117 Criminal Procedure Code . direct you the said Tara Chand to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount, for keeping peace until the conclusion of enquiry failing which you shall be detained in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until such enquiry is concluded. ANNOUNCED. SD/-TARAChand. SD/-(Omesh Sehgal). DATED:-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, NEWDelhi. 15-1-68'ANtoHERorder was passed by the Magistrate. A...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. Devi Dayal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT266
I.D. Dua, C.J. and T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This appeal has been placed before us pursuarant to the ordar of reference dated 24th, April 1967 by Ismail J., because, according to the learned Judge, this appeal raises an important question of law. (2) The decree in execution of' which the order appealed from was made had been passed on 28th, January, 1959 in term, of an award. In Marchl961thedecree-holderstarted proceedings lor execution of the decree and the Judgment debtor was given ntoice for settling the proclamation of sale. 22nd. April. 1961 was the date fixed for this purpose, but the judgment debtor did nto appear on the date. The executing court after recording the absence of the judgment-debtor directed that warrant for auction be issued and fixed 29th May, 1961 as the date for the auction. Srd. June. 1961 was fixed for the report to be put up before the court. On 2nd. May. 1961, the judgment debtor filed an application under order 21, Rules 2 and 23 read with section on 151 of...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sri Devi and ors. Vs. Kanshi Ram Lachmi Narain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi117
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This revision presented in this Court under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act is completely devoid of merit and must, thereforee, be dismissed with costs. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 250.00 against his tenants in the Court of the learned Additional Judge, Small Cause Court. It was averred that originally one Babu Ram was the owner of the building in question, but had mortgaged the same with the plaintiff and a number of persons were tenants of Babu Ram in separate portions of the said building. On 20/11/1952 the mortgagee obtained a mortgage-decree against Babu Ram and in execution thereof, the property in question was auctioned and purchased by the plaintiff himself on 12/8/1954. Symbolic possession of the building was obtained by him on 18/5/1959, and it was thereafter that the suits against the various tenants were filed for the recovery of the arrears of rent. All the suits were consolidated in the trial Court. The plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi211; [1968]21STC437(Delhi)
ORDER1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 220-D of 1962 and 221-D of 1962. I am confining myself to the facts of Civil Writ No. 220-D of 1962 as the learned counsel agree that the decision in this case will govern the toher matter. The petitioner-company alleges in the petition that it manufactures 'Katha', 'Cutch', etc., in its factory at Izatnagar within the State of Uttar Pradesh; that under the contracts made with parties in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Delhi, for sale the goods are delivered f.o.r. Izatnagar and are dispatched from Izatnagar to customer's place of business; that instructions are sent by the petitioner's head office in Calcutta to its factory at Izatnagar to dispatch the goods in terms of the agreements for sale. When the goods are ready, they are 'Unconditionally appropriated' by the petitioner's factory to the respective contracts and are thereafter dispatched by rail direct to the customer's place of business; that the relative Railway Rece...
Tag this Judgment!