Delhi Court May 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.020 seconds)Begum Aftab Zamani Vs. Lal Chand Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi351; 5(1969)DLT15; ILR1969Delhi34
Inder Dev Dua, C.J.1. The question which this Full Bench is called upon to decide relates to the amount of court-fee payable on appeal presented by an aggrieved party under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act (hereafter called the Act) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this High Court given in the exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by the Act, to a Division Court thereof. Section 10 may now be read:'10. Powers of Judge: (1) Where a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary Original civil jurisdiction conferred by Sub-section (2) of section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) the law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to the powers of the Chief Justice, single Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Punjab and with respect to all matters ancillary to the exercise of those po...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Parkash Sawhney Vs. R.A. Wania and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi1; 4(1968)DLT668; [1969]24STC44(Delhi)
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This is an anpSication ander section 526 Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of a criminal complaint under section 483 and 485, Indian Penal Code filed by Shri R.4. Wania, Manager Tata Od Mills Co., Ltd., against the present petitioner Ved Parkash Sawhney This complaint was filed as far back as 1st August 1958 and an order for farther enquiry was made on 10th April 1964. The statement of the accused under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 26th July 1966. (2) The accused against whom this case has been pending for the last more than nine vears was originally discharged of the offence under sections 483 and 488, Indian Penal Code for infringement of trade marks, but this order was reversed by the High Court. The matter has also been to this Court once again as recently as February, 1968 on revision against an order of the learned Magistrate in regard to the summoning of witnesses for the defense and 0m Parkash J. varied the order of the learned Magis...
Tag this Judgment!inder Nath Vs. Ram Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT519
I.D. Dua, J.(1) This order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous 3899 of 1967, 21 of 1968 and 214 of 1968 in R.F.A. No. 147-D of 1965. Dealing first with Civil Miscellaneous 3899 of 1967, this application was presented in this court by Shri Kartar Nath, respondent No. 5, R.F.A. No. 147-D of 1965, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 107 sub-section (1) and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for transposing him from the array of respondents to that of appellants in the appeal. The application is dated 31/10/1967 and was apparently presented in this court on the same date. According to the averments made in this application, the appellant, Shri Inder Nath, along with respondents 5 and 6 (Shri Kartar Nath and Shri Pashori Lal) instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the defendants. In the suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 8-11-1965 declaring the partnership to have been dissolved on 1-8-1953. The trial court ultimately awarded to the defe...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Jain, J. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT626
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (Shri K.S. Sidbu) has reported this case to this Court under Section 430, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a recommendation that the order of conviction made by Shri S.L. Puri, exercising the powers of a Magistrate 1st Class, be quashed and the petitioner Shri R.D. Jain be acquitted. The order of conviction may appropriately be reproduced in extenso: - 'Dont plead guilty. The first vehicle before me was stationary and after toher vahices in front of me have moved and I overtook it and this Police Officer challaned me. I find him guilty of offence 78/112. So I convict bill to pay a fine Rupees fifty'. The impugned order does nto bear any date. Above the original order, the following subject-matter has been imprinted by means of a rubberstamp, some of the blanks of which are filled in ink: 'Statement of accused without oath Shri R.D. Jain, 45 years. Occupation Private Service. Q. The complaint dated 781112 has been read to yo...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1969CriLJ252; 4(1968)DLT460
I.D. Dua, J. Text is nto available...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Hari Singh and Sons and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT559
I.D. Dua, J.(1) The life Insurance Corporation of India has presented this revision under Section 35 of the Dei and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 hereafter called the Act) against the order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers dated 5th April, 1.961 whereby he allowed the appeal from the order of a learned subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 2ath September , 1859 and dismissed the life Insurance Corporation's suit for ejectment which has been deereed by the trial Court. (2) The only question which fell for determination by the trial Court was whether P. Surie. the original tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation, had, by the agreement Exhibit D. 2, sublet, assigned or toherwise parted with possession of the whole or any part of the premis- es in question so as to have become liable to be evicted from the tenan- ted premise under section 13(1) Proviso (b)(i) of the Act. The trial Court en a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion tha...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Bmweja Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT648; 1968LabIC1551
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) The petitioner is a Dermanent employee of the Accountant-General Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, since 1st July, 1951. On 20th September, 1958, the Accountant General Central Revenues passed an order that the petitioner be placed under suspension under rule l2(b) of the Contral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeat) Rules, 1957, with effect from the date of relief from his duties. It was further ordered that- 'During the period of suspension Shri M. L. Baweja, Divisional Accountant shall be paid the following amounts:-- (a) A subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had bean on leave on half averege pay or half pay and in addition dearness allowance based on such leave salary. (b) toher compereatory allowances, if any, of which Shri Baweja was in receipt on the date of suspension provided that he shall nto be entitled to the compensatory allowances unless he satisfies the A.G.C...
Tag this Judgment!Ragabir Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT477
I.D. Dua and V.S. Desbpande, JJ. (1) This petition seeks a certifirate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. By means of the impugned order, a Division Bench of this Court had, while upholding the conviction of Raghbir Singh under Section 302 1. P. C., reduced his sentence from one of death to that of life imprisonment and while allowing the State appeal against acquittal of Mohan Lal and Raj Singh, convicted them also under section 302 1. P. C., sentencing them to life imprisonment. Section 34, I.F.C. was held applicablie to the case. All the three appellants were in addition sentenced under section 307 read with section 34, 1. P. C. to seven years rigorous imprisonment and under section 35 read with section 34 1. P. C. to three years rigorous imprisonment. (2) Shri Hardev Singh the learned counsel for the accused, has in the first instance submitted that the site plan has been illegally considered as evidence in this case and this illegality has resulted in grave injustice to h...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Singh Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT557
Om Purkash, J.(1) This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Jugde. (2) The petititioner, Prahlad Singn, had filed a complaint under sections 323, 325, 247, 148 and 149. Indian Penal Code against the respondents. Preliminary evidence under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and the respondents were summoned to stand trial under sections 148/149 323, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner examined his witnesses, including Shri Bhoop Singb, P. W. 5. At the examination of Shri Bhoop Singh, the petitioner made a request to the Court that he may be permitted to cross-examine the witness. That request was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner made an application to the Court that the statement of Shri Bhoop Singh recorded under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, in an earlier complaint filed by him, which was dismissed in default in appearance, may be summoned and the witness may be confronted with his previous statement. The requisite file was summoned. The...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Pan Works, Delhi Vs. the Chief Commissioner, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi1a; 4(1968)DLT568; [1969]24STC44a(Delhi)
ORDER1. This case came up before us on 1-5-1968 when we felt that it was a fit case in which we should consider the question of exercising the power of this Court under Article 222 of the Constitution for scrutinising and, if necessary, of quashing the order of the Chief Commissioner dated 2-8-1962 rejecting the application for reference to the High Court made under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. On going through the record, which we had sent for, we find that on 28-7-1962, an application was presented by the petitioner M/s. Indian Pan Works through Shri S. P. Saini, their counsel, in the office of the Chief Commissioner under Section 21 (1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, praying for reference to the High Court three questions of law formulated therein. This application did nto bear any court-fee stamp, but this deficiency notwithstanding, it was actually entertained by the office of the Chief Commissioner. Along with the application, was att...
Tag this Judgment!