Delhi Court August 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Paras Dass Son of Jugal Kishore Vs. Paras Dass Son of Baij Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT241
I.D. Dua, J. (1) In this criminal revision, the accused Shri Paras Dass son of Shri Baij Nath challenges the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 30th November, 1965 affirming on appeal the order of his conviction made by Shri B. K. Malhtora, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, dated 18th August, 1965 convic- ting him of an offence under section 500, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo four months' simple imprisonment to two counts, the senten- ces to run concurrently. The complainant, it may be pointed out, is also a man of the same name, Shri Paras Dass, though his' fathers' name is Shri Jugal Kishore. The complaint was instituted on 21st March, 1963 (more than five years ago) and after an enquiry under sec- corporation 202, Cr. P. C., the accused was summoned under section 500, I P.C. According to the complaint, the accused was in the service of the comp- lanant as a Munim for about three or four months, a short time prior to the institution of the complaint. He ...
H.L. Rodhey and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi246
ORDER1. This Writ Petition along with the connected Writ Petitions, 530/68 (Darshan Kumar Puri v. Delhi Administration) and 508/1968 (M. Prasad v. Delhi Administration) has been tiled by certain Ministerial employees of the Delhi Administration, against the constitution of the two separate Central Civil Services, to be known as the Subordinate Ministerial Service and the Subordinate Executive Service of the Delhi Administration by the Promulgation and enforcement of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Ministerial/Executive Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the 1967 Rules), from the 10th February, 1967. The facts are briefly as follows;--2. Prior to the promulgation of the 1967 Rules the Delhi Administration did nto have a unified subordinate service or services. The Administration was divided into several departments, each of which had ministerial as well as executive posts under it. The appointments to the subordinate executive posts were governed by two notifications. The noti...
Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi315; 1969CriLJ1377
1. These two appeals (Criminal Appeals Nos. 80-D and 85-D of 1962) are being disposed of together be- cause they arise out of the same trial and have, thereforee, been disposed of by one order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. Four persons were initially proceeded against by the police under Sections 235, 240 and 243, I. P. C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 24-3-1961 discharged Sewa Singh and Lachhman Pershad for want of evidence, but committed Prem Chand, aged 32 years a tea-vendor of Jumna Bazar, Delhi and Ibrahim, aged 50 years, a mistri of Farash Khanna, Delhi, to stand their trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge.Prem Chand was tried on two charges: --(1) That on 25-12-1959, in Naya Bans, Delhi, he with intent that fraud may be committed was in possession of 85, four anna pieces of counterfeit Indian coins, knowing at the time he came into their possession that they were counterfeit and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 243...
Good Will India Limited and anr. Vs. the Union of India, New Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi462
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The title of the suit gives the names of two plaintiffs, but in reality the plaintiff is only one as the second plaintiff Goodwill Pictures Limited is merely the old name of the first plaintiff Goodwill India Limited. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of certain immovable property the market value of which according to them is Rupees fifty p. lacs, and that they are nto liable to be dis-possessed there from by defendants I to 5 without adequate compensation being given to lhem in the course of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.(2) The plaintiffs originally based their claim to relief on a saledeed executed in their favor by defendants 6 and 7. Later, they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint by incorporating therein an alternative plea that in case they are nto held to be the absolute owners of the property in dispute by virtue of its purchase...
Nand Kishore Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT214
V.S. Despandey and I.D. Dua, JJ. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal lias pointedly raised questions about the proper construction and application of Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. The Appellant (whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge) owned a three-storeyed building, of which a part on the ground floor was occupied by respondent No. 3 as a tenant. Respondent No. 2 was the Deputy Commissioner of the respondent No, I, Delhi Municipal Corporation, invested with the powers of the Commissioner exercisable under Sections 349 and 348. As certain portions of the building, nto including the portion in the occupation of respondent No. 3, were found to be in a dangerous condition two ntoices, one after the toher, were issued on 25th May, 1965 and 29th May, 1965, under Section 349 for the vacation of the dangerous portions. The petitioner challenged the validity of the action by filing a suit in a Civil Court. Subsequently, title Corporation issued a nt...
Sljbash Chander Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT549
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Subhash Chander (Petitioner in this Court) and his fether Prem Narain were tried for offences under sections 325/451 read with section 34 I P.C. Prem Narain was alleged to have caught hold of Suresh Chander complainant P W. land Subhash Chander is alleged to have hit Suresh Chander with his head, thereby breaking Suresh Chander's nasal bone and thus causing him grievous hurt. The learned Magistrate in a detailed order discussed the main relevant evidence and held btoh the accused poisons guilty under section 325/34 and section 451/34, I. P C.. convicting them under these sections and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 each on btoh the counts or in default of payments of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. This order was made on 18th October, 1965. (2) On an appeal having been preferred to the Court of the learned Sessions Judee, Sbri M. S. Joshi, Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, gave to Shri Prem Narain benefit of doubt a...
Dwarka Nath and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT544
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This application has been presented under Article 134 of the Constitution of India for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the supreme Court from the order of this Court dated 7th November, 1967 in Crj. Rev. No 371-B of 1965 by means of which the petitioner's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence, of a token fine of Re. 1 was upheld. (2) The only question raised on revision related to the virus of Kale 32 (b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereafter called the Rules). These rules were held to be intra virus and it was observed that the words '-character, quality or quantity of the article' contained in seetion 23 (1) (d) of the P F.A. Act (hereafter called the Act) were wide and comprehensive enough to take within its fold the manufactarer, imorter, vendor or packer for the purpose of inspiring confidence of the public and the purchaser that they are getting the precise article desired. Ral...
Haknam Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ690; 4(1968)DLT573
I.D. Dua, J. (1) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has referred this case to this Court with a recom mendation that the revision be allowed and the petitioner be acquitted because on 3rd December, 1965, the complainant who is the registrar of the Chit Funds, was absent in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, thereforee under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was bound to acquit the accused. The learned Magistrate on the toher hand rejected the application of the accused praying for acquittal on the ground that the complaint had been filed by a public servant in his capacity as such. (2) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has in his order made a reference to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Reva Chand, and to a decision by Bhandari, C. J. in Daulat Ram v. Ram Kishan. The decision of the Orissa High Court cited on behalf of the State in the case of Jagannath Sahu v. State, was nto followed by the the learned Additiona...
Amar Nath Vs. Sewa Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT547
I.D. Dua, J. (1) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents in this case that the revision is barred by time. Reliance has been placed on Article 131 of the Limitation Act No. 36 of 1983. This Article prescribes a period of 90 days for presenting a revision under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure, the terminus a quo being the date of the decree or order or sentence sought to be revised. In the case in hand, the order sought to be revised is dated 18th September, 1965 and the revision was presented in this Court on 9th March, 1968. An application for a copy of the order was made on 24th December, 1965, and the same was attested on 25th January, 1966 and perhaps delivered on the same day. Calculating on the basis of these dates the period requisite for obtaining the copy and deducting the same from the time- taken by the petitioner in filing this revision petition, it is nto denied that it is barred by time. The only ground on which t...
Goruk Mal Vs. Himachal Pradesh Government
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT191
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is a whole-sale dealer in food-grains, Kariana, cemet, vanaspsti, molasses and general merchandise at Maranda, District Kangra. The Punjab Rcorgaization Act, 1966 (Act No. 31 of 1966) came into force on November 1, 1966, and the Districts of Kangra, Kulu, Lahaul Spiti and Simla (hereafter referred to as the 'transferred territories'), which formed part of the State of Punjab, were merged in the Union torritory of Himachal Pradesh. The transferred territories, being part of Punjab, the provisions of the Punjab Sales-tax Act, 1948, were applicable therein and by virtue of section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, continued to operate in the transferred territories until altered by to the areas comprised in the Union Territory of Himachal Pardesh before merger of the transferred territories, the East Punjab General Sales-tax Act, 1948 ( hereafter referred to as the Himachal Act) was applicable with certain modi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›