Delhi Court July 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.022 seconds)Deb Kanta Roy Vs. E.S. Krishnamurty, Member Central Board of Revenue a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT693
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This writ petition was filed by Deb Kanta Roy, who carries on business under the name and style of D.K Roy and Company at Calcutta, praying that a suitable writ or direction or order may be issued quashing the orders dated 10th July 1958 and/or 28th April, 1959 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and directing that no effect be given to the said orders. The first respondent in the writ petition is E.S.Krishnamurthy Member, Central Board of Revenue. New Delhi and the second respondent is the Union of India. (2) The facts which led up to the filing of this writ petition are stated as under. Under a Drug Import license N. 3352, dated 22nd November, 2955 (Annexure A), issued by the Drugs Controller, India, New Delhi, in favor of the petitioner, the petitioner indented and imported into India a drug known as procaine pencilin, G Crystalline used for aqueous infection and described in the aforesaid license as 'Jenacillin A' from East Ger...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT1
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) The principal question requiring determination by us is whether non- compliance with the Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 framed under section 549 (1), Cr.P. C. (hereafter called the Rules) goes to the roto of the inherent jurisdiction of the committing Magistrate and of the Court trying the case pursuant to the commitment order or whether it is a mere irregularity, the effect of which is to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the each case. The facts giving rise to this reference are contained in the referring order dated 25th June, 1968 and, thereforee, need nto be repeated. That order may be read as a part of this order. Section 549, Cr. P. C., and the relevant rules framed there under may now be reproduced :- 'S.549 (1).-Delivery to military authorities of persons liable to be tried by Court martial.-The Central Government may make rules consistent with this Code and the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act and t...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT119
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) The short question arising in this revision is whether this Court should make an order directing that the property which was the subject-matter of the charge should be directed to be handed back to the accused persons.(2) It is unnecessary to state elaborately the facts giving rise to this revision. Suffice it to say that Lachhman and Ram Dass were convicted by a learned Magistrate Ii Class Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur under section 447, I.P.O., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 each. I am informed that the land in question was directed to be handed over to the complainant Gram Panchayat Mehri Kathl. This order was apparently made under section 522 (1) Cr. P.C. (3) On appeal, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the accused. As a result of this acquittal, it was ordered that fine if realised should be refunded to them according to law. Unfortunately, the lower Appellate Court omitted to make an order d...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Anand and anr. Vs. Bachittek Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT524
Om Parkash, J. (1) This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Commercial Subordinate Judge whereby he rejec- ted the objections of the appellats filed against the award and made the award rule of the Courts (2) Roshan Lal, appellant, and Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2, as hirers, and Kuldip Singh, appellant, as guarantor, had taken on hire a car No. Dlc 6058 from respondent No. 1 on the basis of the bire.pur. chase agreement. Ex. P./IA, dated the 28th August, 1954. The hirers defaulted in the payment of the Installments of the hire money They also failed to return the car to respondent No. 1, Thus, disputes had arisen between the parties in connection with the hire-purchase agree- ment. In accordance with clause l5(b) of the hire-purchase agreement. respondent No. 1 referred the disputes to the sole arbitration of Shri Sardar Bahadur, Advocate, by its letter dated the 10th August, 1956. The arbitrator issaed ntoices to the parties for the 2Bth August, 19 ?. Respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Raghu Nath Vs. Chander Bhan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT542
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Authority under Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, dated 19th February, 1980. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has very frankly submitted that the amount due ander this order having actually been paid by his client and the respondent being untraceable it will serve no useful purpose to seek variation of the order on the merits, though he has in bids usual quiet manner questioned the correctness of the decision haltingly. He has in seriousness, however, confined his grievance only to the language used by the learned Authority in the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the language used is much too strong to be used by judicial officers in their judgments and, thereforee, ''e descibes it to be unjudicial, which does nto deserve to be sustained on the existing judicial record The learned counsei has drawn my attention to that part of the impugned ordr'r where...
Tag this Judgment!Har Bhaj and anr. Vs. Barfi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi197
1. This Regular Second Appeal (R. S.A. 283 of 1967) was originally registered in the Puniab High Court as R. Section A. No- 656 of 1962. On its transfer to this Court, the present number has been assigned to it,2. After reading the judgments of the two Courts below, I have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and sending it back to the same Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The trial Court had on an appraisal of the evidence on the record decided issue No. 1 in favor of the plaintiffs and granted a decree in their favor. On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers reversed the conclusions of fact without properly discussing the evidence on the record. I may at this stage reproduce a part of the impugned judgment:'The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the construction and working of the water flour mill was an act of appropriation and he further held that the sanctioning authority wa...
Tag this Judgment!Chinta Mani Vs. Jagaf Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT479
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Smt. Chinta Mani and her minor female child have approached this Court on revision assailing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Juge, Kalpa Sub-Division, Kalpa, dated 9th January, 1968 rejecting their claim under section 488, Cr. P.C. for maintenance against Shri Jagat Singh (respondent in this Court) who has been stated to be the father of the female child and who has lived with Smt Chinta Mani as her husband. (2) The claim proceedings were, I am informed, initially instituted in the Nayaya Panchayat, Kalpa, but under section 63 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Rai Act, those proceedings were transferred to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the controversy. I am informed by the -learned counsel appearing in this case that though in section 63 the Court is described as that of the Magistrate, he really functions as Sub- Divisional.judge while dealing with proceedings like the present. As ntohing turns on this description, I need nto say anything on this p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Singh Vs. Himachal Pradesh Government
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT109
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Writ Petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by one Mohinder Singh praying for .the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents I and 2 to stop the prosecution of the petitioner for plying his mtoher vehicle under a public carrier permit No. 76/65 issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, for the whole of Punjab and Kalka-Simla route. The first respondent is the State of Himachal Pradesh. The second respondent is the State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, Simla. The third respondent is the State Transport Commissioner Punjab, Chandigarh. (2) The Petitioner, Moninder Singh, is engaged in the business of goods transport on the authority of a public carrier permit No. 76/65 in respect of his vehicle No. PNS-638 issued by the Secretary, Regional. Transport Authority, Ambala, in accordancs with the orders of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, for the whole of Punjab and Kalka-Simla ...
Tag this Judgment!Kahnu Vs. Hirda Ram Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT183
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Second Appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Mandi and Chamba Districts, at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, dated 31st October, 1966, in Civil Miscellaneons Appeal No. 282 of 1965 on his file, whereby he allowed the appeal partly and modified the order of the learned Compensation Officer, Sarkaghat, dated 4th September, 1965. (2) The appellant herein, Kahnu, filed an application before the Compensation Officer, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, for the grant of proprietary rights in respect of Kitat 69 area measuring 108 Bighas and 10 bids was comprised in Khewat Khatauni 18 min/55 min 58 in village Chanauta alleging that he was the cultivating tenant of the aforesaid land and was paying rent for the same to the landlords. The said land was owned by two persons, mst. Maghi and Hari Singh, each having a half share...
Tag this Judgment!