Delhi Court June 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.
inder Singh Vs. Gulzara Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi154; 4(1968)DLT660
S.K. Kapur, J.1. By registered sale deed dated July 26, 1963, Kartar Singh sold 6 Kanals and 4 Marias of land being a share in joint land, in favor of Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh respondents herein for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. On January 15, 1964, Inder Singh instituted a suit for possession of the said land by pre-emption. Inder Singh plaintiff founded his claim on a superior right of pre-emption over the vendees, Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh. The following pedigree table brings out the relationship of Kartar Singh vendor, Inder Singh plaintiff and Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh vendees: DHARAM SINGH ________________________|___________________ | | | Narain Singh Inder Singh Kishan Singh | (Plaintiff- | | pre-emptor) Kartar Singh |______________ (Vendor) ______________|_______________ | | Gulzara Singh Wattan Singh (Vendees)2. The trial Court decreed the suit on July 21, 1965, and an appeal in the Court of District Judge against the trial Court's decision also failed. The...
Khazana Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT554
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Khanzana Ram has appealed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition and holding the order of compulsory retirement against him to be free from any such infirmity as may be set right on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2) To state briefly the facts relevant for our purpose, the petitioner appellant was recruited as a clerk in 1944 and was transferred in the end of 1957 from Simla to the Government of India Press, Nasik Road. The trouble centres round the traveling allowance charged by him at the time of transfer. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to traveling allowance for the members of his family which, on his calculation would come to Rs. 246.63 np., but he submitted a bill only for Rs. 24.32 np. on 17th September, 1958. As is obvious from the order of the learned Single Judge, and it has nto been disputed before us admittedly, the appellant did nto claim the actual, e...
Sher Singh Vs. Chet Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ838
ORDERT.V.R. Tatachari, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application came up before me in November, 1967. After hearing the learned Counsel for btoh the parties, I referred the case to a Full Bench on two points by my order, dated 29-11.1967. The Full Bench, by a judgment, dated 1.4-1968, decided the first point on the basis of a concession made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and sent back the case for decision by a Single Judge on the second point. The facts which gave rise to this revision application were set out by me in detail in my order of reference to the Full Bench, and I, thereforee, need nto state them again in detail. I shall, however, set out a few facts which are relevant for a decision on the second point.2. Chet Bam, the respondent herein, made a report to the police that he owned two mules, that he sent his servant Gaur Singh with the mules to a certain place for bringing certain goods for his shop, that the servant did nto return in the evening, that on an enqui...
Rattan Chand Vs. Rup Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT578
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Rup Daps (respondent No. 1 in this Court) instituted a suit for rendition of accounts in the Court of a Subordinate Judge. Rohru, against Rattan Chand and Girja Nand. The valuation for the purposes of Court fee and Jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 110.00 as is usually in such cases. It appears that the defendants, amongst their pleas, raised a preliminary objection which gave rise to the following, amongst toher issues : - 'WHETHER the dispute which is the subject-matter of the present suit is pending before arbitrators and as such the suit is nto maintainable ?' Treating this issue as a preliminary issue, the learned Subordinate Judge decided the same in favor of the defendants and dismissed the suit, holding it to be nto maintainable. (2) Aggrieved by this decree, the plaintiff took the matter on appeal to the Court of the learned District Judge, Mahasu. The lower Appellate Court disagreed with the view of the learned Subordinate Judge and expressed his opinon thus : - ...
Ram Vs. Naraini
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT105
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision may briefly be stated. Smt. Naraini, wife of Siri Ram (petitioner in this Court), approached the Nyaya Panchayat at Chandpur, Parnaga and Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur, for maintenance against her husband under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The Panchayat is stated to have made some order of which the parties before me have nto cared to produce a copy in this Court. But be that as it may, a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat on April 7, 1965, made an order directing Siri Ram to pay a sum of Rs. 80.00 per month to Smt. Naraini on the condition that she lives in the house of her in-laws and nto in that of her parents. (2) Against the order of the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat, Siri Ram preferred a revision in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class (T. O.), Bilaspur, under section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. That Court allowed the revision and dismissed the application presented by Smt. Naraini under sec...
Raja Sahib of Nalagarh Vs. the Punjab State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi194
I.D. Dua, C.J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order of Shri B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dated 17-10-1964 has been referred to a larger Bench by my learned brother Tatachari, J. by his order dated 15-11-1967 because it raises the question of the virus of Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (Act Xxxi of 1959) (hereafter called the Act). This section has been challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory and vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Stating briefly the facts giving rise to this challenge the petitioner Raja Sahib of Nalagarh claims to have been a proprietor of the land in dispute situated in villages Seri and Ghansot, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Ambala, before the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, when the State of Nalagarh merged into the said Union. Later the Pepsu Government, by means of a notification dated 1...
Union of India Vs. Angrup Thakur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi279; 4(1968)DLT655
I.D. Dua, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution questioning the proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of the land measuring about 84 bighas and 11 bids was belonging to the writ petitioners, Shri Ang-rup Thakur and others, respondents in the present appeal. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called the Act) was issued in January, 1965 and under Section 6, in October, 1965. According to the notification under Section 4, it appeared 'to the Governor ocf Punjab that land was likely to be required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of building and doing research work on vegetables' and in the notification under Section 6, the Governor of Punjab was stated to be satisfied that the land in question was needed by the Government at public expenses fo...
Doomamu Vs. Mehar Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT620
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single judge raises the question of the construction of section 15(2)(b) First of the Punjab Preemption Act 1 of 1913 (hereafter called the Act) as amended. (2) Facts relevant for our purposes, as discernible from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge are that one half share of land measuring 61 kanals and 12 marlas situated in Tikka Jaunta, Mauza Pundar was sold by one Smt. Jhokbu in favor on one Mehar Chand and tohers for a sum of Rs 900 by means of a sale-deed dated 6th September, 1963. Doomnu, claiming a superior right of pro-emption, instituted a suit turn pie-emption, out of which this appeal has arisen. The suit was resisted on various grounds and the pleas of the parties gave rise to four issues We are here concerned only with issue No. 1 which reads as under:- 'Whether the plaintiff is a step-son of the vendor and is a pint owner in the khata and as such has a superior right of pre-emption ?' The tr...
Banthi Lal and ors. Vs. Kirpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT257
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar sons of Padam filed a suit in July. 1964 against Kirpal Singh for possession by ejectment of Kirpal Singh from land comprised in Khasra No. 1100 measuring 5 bids was and situated in village Sangla. The plaintiffs alleged that Kirpal Singh defendant illegally encroached upon the said land with effect from Kharif 1962 and constructed a house, a cattle shed and a grain store thereupon. The defense set up by defendant Kirpal Singh was that the land in suit was given by the father of the plaintiffs to the mtoher of the defendant 40 or 50 years back for the construction of a house and it was she who took possession of the land and construct- ed the structures. The land was, according to the defendant, Kirpal Singh, given to his mtoher because she was the sister of the father of plaintiffs Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar. It appears that Sari Lal was, in the first instance, imp leaded as a pro forma defendant but by ordir dated 6th October, 1964. he was tr...
iachhmi Nand Vs. Gobind Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ688; 4(1968)DLT482
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This renision has basn presented in this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. ag-inst the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu. dated 23rd March, 1967. by means of which the Court of the Sessions Judge avowed the revision and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint of the complainant under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code remanded the case to the trial Court for further enquiry into the complaint and for taking further action in accordance with Jaw (2) It appears that a complaint had been filed by Gabind Ram (respondent in this Court) against 43 accused persons under section 47/147, 1. P. C. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate for investigation and report under section 136, Criminal Procedure Code On receipt of the report from the police, the learned Magistrate trying the case, passed an order on 28th June 1966 summoning the complainant for 7th July, 1960. On the said date of bearing, the comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »