Delhi Court May 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.
Musharraf Ahmed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi12; 1969CriLJ43
1. Shri B. L. Nagpal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has forwarded this cast with a recommendation that the order of Shri N. C. Jain, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, dated 5-12-1967 be modified to the extent that the part of the order relating to action under Section 117(3) Cr. P. C. against Maulvi Musharraf Ahmed petitioner be set aside.2. It appears that the station House Officer, Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi, made a report for action under Section 107, Cr. P. C., against the petitioner and on that report, on 5-12-1967, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order as contemplated by Section 112, Cr. P. C. directing the petitioner to show cause why he should nto be asked to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000, with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace for a period of one year. In the same report, the police had also asked for action against the petitioner under Section 117(3) Cr. P, C., and on that report, the learned Magistrate making the enquiry, als...
Nanney Khan Vs. A.B. Mathur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT615
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This appeal under section So of the Workmen s Compensation Act No. 8 oF 1923 (hereafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Act dated 22nd May, 1967, by means of which the appellant was granted a sum of Rs. l,890.00by way of compensation, as against the claim for Rs. 5,040/. In the present appeal, the claim is confined to Rs. 630.00 and the sole ground on which this amount: is claimed, is founded on the ntoification made in the year 1954 by means of which the Chief Commissioner. Delhi, laid down the rates of the following unskilled category of labourers under section 3(1) of the Minimum Wages Act .- 1.Mazdoor. 2. Chowkidar. 3. Sweeper. 4. Peon. 5. Packer. 6. Pressman. 7. Helper. 8. Cleaner. 9. Hammer-Iran. 10. Grain-maa. 11. Sltoterman. 12. Greafeeman. 13. Wireman. 14 Rollman. These unskilled workers were empowered under this ntoification to claim Rs 5Z/8.00 per month or Rs. 1/12.00 per day, in case of casual labiur. It is true...
Hargopal Mehra and anr. Vs. Nand Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT180
R.P. Khosla, J. (1) This second appeal is from the order of Rent Control Tribunal. Delhi, dated 5th of November, 1961 by which the judgment of Rent Controller, Delhi concluding that the landlord had cause of action, was set aside. (2) The question, subject matter for decision, had arisen in the following circumstances. The property (House) in dispute was an evacuee property. The authorities under the Evacuee Act tenanted it to Nand Lal. In the year 1955 Nand Lal inducted a sub-tenant Ram Sarup by name. In 1956 the said property was purchased by one Sat Parkash. It might be stated that the property meanwhile had been acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons. (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, was sold and it was in auction that said Sat Parkash had purchased the same. In the year 1958 Sat Parkash sold his light, title and interest in the said property to Hargopal and Rama Shankar. On 19th of November, 1963 the owners Hargopal and Rama Shankar maintained an application for ...
Uma Dutt Vs. R.K. Sardana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi6; 4(1968)DLT475
1. In this application, the respondent has prayed that the judgment-debtor-appellant Uma Datt be called upon to show cause why he should nto be prosecuted in trying to mislead this Court by concealment or material facts in his application Civil Miscellaneous No. 195 of 1967, dated 11-1-1967. The application is ingenious and indeed it obviously has been inspired by a desire to put pressure on the opposite party. In the heading of the application, it is stated to have been filed under S. 151, Civil P. C., and under Sections 193, I.P.C. and 476. Cr.P.C., but it is obvious that the application (Civil Misc. No. 195 of 1967) was neither verified by Uma Datt nor is there any affidavit which has been suggested to be the basis for the prosecution for which the respondent wants to canvass. During the course of arguments, however, the learned counsel for the respondent has only tried to make out a case for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court.2. Contempt of Court, it must never be forgott...
Mohd. Iqbal Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tehar, New Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi45; 1969CriLJ186
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Pakistan national, was arrested by the Customs Authorities on 18th October, 1964, in pursuance of a raid at D-115, defense Colony, New Delhi, under section 104 of the Customs Act. He was produced before the Additional District Magistrate on 19th October, 1964, and ordered to be released on bail,2. Regarding the amount of bail there is a controversy between the parties as, according to the petitioner, he was ordered to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- which was subsequently increased to Rs. 5,000/-, but, according to the supplementary affidavit of the respondents, the bail amount was Rs. 20,000/- with one surety which was enhanced by the learned Sessions Judge to Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties. Before the petitioner could be actually released from jail by furnishing bail bond he was served with an order under clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of section 3 of Foreigners Act (31 of 1946). The petitioner challenged the said order by a writ...
Charanjit Lal Malhtora Vs. Raj Kumari Sud and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT639
I.D. Dua, C.J. and T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the property in controv- ersy and for damages instituted by Shri Charanjit Lal Malhtora against Dr. Prithi Singh, the learned Commercial Subordinate Judge, Delhi, on 27th February, 1965 made a decree in favor of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the following terms :- 'I,therefore, pass a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant of the property in dispute The plaintiff will deposit Rs 7,550.00 within one month from today. If he failed to do so, the suit of the plaintiff will be deemed to have been dismissed. The defendant will give an application for permission to transfer the property in question to the plaintiff to the appropriate authority within one month of the ntoice of the deposit of the money served on the defendant. Within one month of the date of the grant of the permission, the d...
Bennet Coleman and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT61
Hardayal Hardy and Om Parkash, JJ. (1) The petitioner in this case onder Section 21 (2) (b) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 19.41 as extended to Delhi, is a branch office in the State of Delhi of a joint stock company roistered onder the Indian Companies Act 1913 which has Head office at Bombay, The Company h engaged inter alia, in the business of printing and pablishing newspapers and periodicals and making of blocks etc. (2) During the assessment year 1954-55 the Bombay-office of the Company made certain sales to customers at Delhi. The Sales Tax Officer Delhi included these sales in the turn-over of the petitioner rejecting its contention that the sales having been made by its Head Office at Bombay could nto be taxed in its hands at Delhi. (3) The petitioner's contention however found favor with the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax at Delhi who by his order dated 21st June, 1957. directed exclusion of those sales from the taxable turnover of the petitioner. On toher issues...
Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi170; 4(1969)DLT595
Jagjit Singh, J. 1. The Lawrence School, Sanawar (Simla Hills), called the School, is an educational institution which is being run by a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The name of that Society is the Lawrence School (Sanawar) Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society').2. Shri Mohinder Singh, the petitioner in this case, was serving the School as Quartermaster. By a letter dated March 20, 1967 (No. E2/514) the Headmaster of the School gave him three months' notice for termination of his services under rule 10 (ix) of the School Rules. The petitioner was informed that after the expiry of the notice period, on the afternoon of June 19, 1967, he will be permitted to avail of the earned leave that was at his credit. Some instructions were as well given to him for handing over the charge of his duties.3. The petitioner requested the Head- master through a letter dated March 25, 1967 that he wanted to file an appeal to the Board of Governors of the Soc...
Pooran Chand Vs. Union Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT590
Hardayal Hardy and Om Parkash, JJ. (1) These are two references made to us under Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi and they raise a lather interesting question as to the interpretation of clauses la) and (b) of Subsection (5) o.f Section 4 of the Act. (2) The facts are brief and simple. The firm Puran Chand Gain Prakash deals in Zari,Gto etc-. Which is partly manufactlred by it and certain toher alled goods which it resells after buying them from toher dealers. The turn-over of the firm, thereforee, coasists of saleproceeds of goods manufactured by it as well as of the goods purchased and re-sold by it. The firms contention in the revision petitions filed betore the Chief Commissioner of Delhi against its assessment for the years 1955 56 and 1956-57 was that as it was a manufacturer of goods for sale it was nto liable to pay any tax until its turn over from the sale proceeds of goods manufactured by it exceeded Rs. 10,000/ . On the toher hand, ...
Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi64
S.K. Kapur, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 294 of 1968, 330 of 1968 and 343 of 1968. The principal attack in these writ petitions is against the implementation of the Award dated 19th February, 1968, of the Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary Case Tribunal constituted pursuant to the agreement dated 30th June, 1965, between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan. The award will, for brevity, be hereafter referred to as the 'Kutch Award.'2. The dispute between the two Governments was regarding the Gujarat-West Pakistan border and by agreement dated 30th June. 1965, the two Governments agreed inter alias that-(1) Ministers of the two Governments will meet in order to agree on the determination of the border in the light of their respective claims and the arrangements for its demarcation; (2) in the event of no agreement between the Ministers of the two Governments on the determination of the border being reached within two months of the cease-fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »