Delhi Court April 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.021 seconds)Amar Nath Vs. Alfa
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi133; 1969CriLJ598; 4(1968)DLT473
ORDER1. The respondent in this case, Alfa by name, was tried separately in two cases under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Against him complaints were filed by a Food Inspector for selling adulterated rnilk. One of those cases was decided by the Magistrate. First Class, Chamba, on November 7, 1967 and the respondent was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The second case was decided on November 13, 1967 and the sentence awarded was six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. While deciding the second case the learned Magistrate ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently with the sentence in the previous case which was being undergone by the convicted person.2. A revision was filed by the Food Inspector concerned in the court of the Sessions Judge, Kangra. Shri Chet Ram, the learned Sessions Judge, made a report recommending setting aside of the order of the Magistrate by which h...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1969CriLJ250; 5(1969)DLT144
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) Om Parkash who was convicted by Shri P. C. Bhatnagar, Magistrate 1st Class Delhi on 31st August, 1967 under sections 326/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and whose appeal from his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27th November, 1967, has preferred this revision through Shri M. S. Gandhi, his learned Advocate. (2) The circumstances giving rise to this revision are that on the evening of 14th November, 1965, at about 7 P. M. Ved Parkash P. W, 2 and Vishwa Nath were having tea at a tea stall in Ram Nagar. After finishing with their tea, Vishwa Nath went out of the shop and Ved Parkash soon thereafter heard some noise indicative of some alteration. Coming out of the shop, he saw that Kulwant Singh. Chander. Om Parkash and Lachhman were quarrelling with Vishwa Nath. Vishwa Nath picked up a brickbat and hurled it on his opponents, but they evaded the brickbat and did nto sustain an injur...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sunni Majlis Aukaf and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi216
ORDER(1) This revision has been presented in this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C., and Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of a learned Sub-ordinate Judge, First Class, dated 22-5-1961, declining to review under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, its earlier order, dated 7-2-1959 passed in Execution Case No. 357 of 1957 (Municipal Committee, Delhi v. Sunni Majlis Aukaf, etc.) (2) The Municipal Corporation, Delhi, it appears, had obtained a decree against Sunni Majlis Aukaf and Bhagwan Dass for possession of the suit property subject to the condition that the execution of the decree would be taken out after the expiry of two years from its date. This decree was a compromise decree based on a joint statement of the parties made at the trial on 18-5-1963. The mesne profits were to be fixed after the inspection of the property by the Court and it was actually, fixed at the rate of Rs. 20 per month pending the recovery of possession. Possession...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Dayal Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi240; 4(1968)DLT429; ILR1968Delhi335
ORDER(1) By this application under Article 133(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is sought against our order date 5-2-1968 by means of which Execution First Appeal No 75-D of 1962 (Sita Ram v. Devi Daval) was allowed and the case remitted to the executing Court for selling the property in question. The value of the subject-matter in dispute , btoh in the Court below and on appeal in the Supreme Court, appears to us to be more than Rs 20,000. (2) The question principally canvassed before us is whether the order from which the appeal is now sought to be preferred is a final order because if it is nto a final order, then it is nto open to this Court to grant the requisite certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. On behalf of the petitioner-appellant, our attention has been drawn by Miss Uma Mehts, his learned Advocate, to the following decisions:- (3) Rahimbhoy Hib...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Parkash Bodh Raj Vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi174; 1968CriLJ1153; 5(1969)DLT271
ORDER(1) In this criminal revision under section 435 and 439 of the criminal procedure Code. The legality of the order of the learned Sub- divisional Magistrate. Delhi, dated 6-5-1967 is challenged. (2) It appears that Smt. Sheila Rani presented an application under section 488, Cr. P. C., for maintenance against her husband Shri Chander Parkash on the ground that she had been turned out of the house by her husband, who failed and neglected to maintain her. The parties were married and stayed together for some time and a child was also born from this wedlock. According to the wife, her husband was keeping with him his step-mtoher and it was mainly; on this ground that he was usually; cross with his wife and used to beat her on occasions. (3) The factum of marriage was admitted by the husband and he also expressed his willingness to maintain his wife provided she lived with him. In the evidence, the wife deposed that the husband was having a liason with his step-mtoher and the husband a...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Begum Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi202; 1968CriLJ1162; 5(1969)DLT194
ORDER(1) The facts in this Criminal Revision which has been referred to this Court by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, are that Mst. Munni Begum, who will hereafter be referred to as the petitioner, is the widow of Pir Wazir Ali Shah Warsi. He died in Delhi on 15-4-1967 and was buried by the petitioner in a room of her house No. 773, Phatak Karoli, Frash Khana, Delhi. Inasmuch as the said house had nto been set apart for making graves for burial of dead persons, she was called upon to remove the nuisance by service of ntoice under Section 398 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, but she failed to do so. A complaint was thereafter lodged against her by the Delhi Municipal Corporation for offences under Section 397(1)(d) , 398 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal; Corporation Act, 1957, in the Court of a Magistrate who issued summons for the appearance of the petitioner. Before she appeared in Court an application was moved on her behalf under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Proce...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Butail Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi15; ILR1969Delhi137; (1970)ILLJ147Del
Andley, J.1. In pursuance of a notice dated May 12, 1967, purporting to have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j). of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner, a permanent Director in the Central Water and Power Commission (Power Wing) New Delhi, was retired from service with effect from August, 15, 1967. It is this retirement which has been challenged by the petitioner on two main grounds, namely, (1) that Fundamental Rule 56 (j) was ultra virus Clause (2) of Article 311 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and (2) that the order of retirement was mala fide and without application of mind to the relevant circumstances o the case.2. The petitioner was serving as an Electrical Engineer in the Simla Electricity Undertaking until 1949. On September, 7, 1949, he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for the Class I (Senior Scale) post of a Project Officer in the Central Electricity Commission and was confirmed and became permane...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Dass Amolak Das Vs. Krishna Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi201; 1968CriLJ1160; 4(1968)DLT455
ORDER(1) This is an application for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court from the order dated 8-1-1968 allowing Criminal Revision No. 9 of 1967, in agreement with the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, from the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dismissing the application of Smt. Krisha Kumari under Section 488 Cr. P.C., for maintenance for herself and her son. The parties, as is obvious were married to each toher on 17-11-1959, and after marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and a son was born form this marriage on 20-10-1960. Misunderstanding appears to have arisen between the husband and the wife and the husband apparently stopped supporting her. The wife then initiated proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P.C., in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, who dismissed that application on 28-5-1966. According to the wife's allegations, the respondent and his mtoher were nto satisfied with the dowry broug...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Ram Vs. Sub Divisional Judge and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1969CriLJ77; 4(1968)DLT380
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) If there ever was a case in which the fundamental principles of our criminal jurisprudence have been violated to the prejudice of the citizen, this is the one. (2) Seven residents of village Shekhal, Pargana Nawar, Tehsil Rohroo, made a report to the Sarpanch, Naya Panch Tikhar, in which it was stated that Nand Ram son of Gurdas Lad stopped the passage, at a place known as Bundar Raj, of the cattle and numerous passers by in Chak Shekhal by constructing a wall. The said Nand Ram had no right outside the area owned by him During the rainy season, there was no toher path except this one which was being used for generations. It was prayed that Nand Ram be stopped pending the decision on the grevance of the said villagers. This report is dated 18th July. 1967. Annexure 'F' shows the proceedings taken by the Panchay at on the basis of this report. Curiously enough, the certified copy of these proceedings does nto bear any date. It would be helpful to reproduce in verbatim...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaki Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT516
I.D. Dua, J. (1) The ahort point requiring determination in this appeal is whether an order dismissing an earlier writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the word 'dismissed' op (2) In support of the appeal, reliance has been placed on a judgn ment of the Supreme Court in Daryoo Ram v. State of U.P., and paragraph 19 of the judgment at p. 1466 of the report has been specifically died upon That paragraph reads as under :- 'WEmast now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that it a writ petition filed by a party under Art. ...20 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is toherwise modified or reversed by appeal or toher appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would nto be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Art. 32 by an original petition made on the...
Tag this Judgment!