Delhi Court September 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.
State Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT655
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the Special Judge acquiting the respondent Harbans Lal Gupta, of the charge of having accepted illegal grantification of Rs 50/ from the complainant P. W. 1, Sant Ram, on 31st March, 1965, an offence which, if proved, would have been punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereniafter called the Act). (2) The respondent Gupta, was the Sanitary and Food Inspector posted at Arki while P. W. 1 Sant Ram has a shop at Dhundhan, a few miles from Arki. On 23rd March, 1965, Gupta came to the shop of Sant Ram for inspection. Though Tuesday was a closed day for Sant Ram's shop, Gupta ordered him to open it and brought by way of sample 750 grammes of Shakkar, i e. unrefired sugar, sealed it in three packets and gave one to Sant Ram and took away the toher two. It is alleged that Gupta., however, told Sant Ram nto to be afraid and asked him to come and see him at his office at Arki. Sant ...
Namdhari Gurudwara Vs. Nakbinoo and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT592
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) The only question raised in this appeal relates to the virus of section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 and the challenge is centered round Article 26 of the Constitution. Section 11 reads as under :- 'RIGHT of tenant to acquire interests of land owner, 11. (1) Ntowithstanding any law, custom or contract to the contrary '(8) Where compensation is paid in Installments the unpaid amount of compensation shall he a charge upon the land.' Article 26 which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs, provides that subject to public older, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right- (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property, and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law. The contention raise is that the appell...
Freewheels (P) Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Veda Mittra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi258; [1969]39CompCas1(Delhi); ILR1969Delhi27
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of my learned brtoher S. N. Andley, J. dated 26/8/1968 whereby he confirmed the adinterim injunction restraining Free Wheel (India) Limited, a subsidiary company of Globe Mtoors Limited, from giving effect to a resolution passed by the subsidiary company on 22-7-1968 for raising further capital. A petition for winding up against Globe Mtoors Limited (hereafter referred to as the 'holding company') has already been admitted by this Court and is pending. Upon a petition made in the winding up proceedings for appointment of a provisional liquidator, the learned Single Judge appointed administrators to safeguard the interests of the unsecured creditors. The holding company holds 52 per cent. equity capital in Free Wheel (India) Limited (hereafter referred to as the 'subsidiary company'. H. P. Bhatnagar was, at the time of passing the resolution to issue further capital, the Managing Director of the holding company a...
Meena Ram Vs. Amolak Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT100
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This application under Article 133 of the Constitution arises oat of an order made by a Division Bench of this Court in a first appeal from decree whereby the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court in favor of the present applicant was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision on some of the issues which according to the learned Judges hearing the appeal had nto been correctly decided by it. While remanding the case the learned Judges observed that it would be open to the trial Court to construe the pleadings for the purpose of determining the pleas raised by the respective parties or to allow any amendment in the pleadings if prayed for or to take fresh evidence. (2) The applicant who was plaintiff in the suit had come to Court on the allegations that his father Sadh Ram had died in the year 1932 leaving behind three sons, namely, Amolak Ram (defendant No. 1), Mina Ram plaintiff) and Mtoi Ram who was their step-brtoher. Sadh...
Mangtu Vs. Tikam Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT314
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This appeal involves a question of first impression regarding the extent of the right of pre- emption by tenants un.der the fourth clause of Section 15(l)(c) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as amended in 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). (2) The land in suit consists of two-thirds share in khasra No. 662 min (I bigha 9 biswas) and 662 min (4 bighas 10 biswas) measuring 5 bighas and 19 biswas. It was sold by Shrimati Phoolan Devi and Shri- mati Janki Devi, respondents 2 and 3, to Teekarn Ram, respondent 1. The appellant Mangtoo was a tenant of a part of khasra No. 662 min (I bigha 9 biswas) to the (3) Learned counsel on btoh sides confined their arguments to the construction of Section 15(1 )(c) fourthly which runs as follows :- '15.Persons in whom right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property- (1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest-- (c) where...
Radhey Shyam Sawhney and ors. Vs. Bawa Joginder Singh Bhalla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi142; 5(1969)DLT82; ILR1969Delhi19
Dua, C.J. 1. This case has been placed before us pursuant to my order of reference dated 14-11-1967 which may be read as a part of the present order. The only question requiring authoritative determination is whether the amendment made in Rule 1 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Punjab High Court is still operative in the Courts of the District Judges and Subordinate Judges of 1st Class in the Union Territory of Delhi The submission eloquently pressed by Shri Sehgal on behalf of the defendant-petitioner is that under section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act No. 26 of 1966, the Delhi High Court alone has the power to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure and all rules made by the Punjab High Court with respect to such practice and procedure in relation to the subordinate Courts at Delhi must cease to have effect as soon as the Punjab High Court ceased to have jurisdiction over such subordinate Courts. 2. In support of his submission. Shri Sehgal has c...
Nand Kishore Chela Mal Vs. Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi137; 1969CriLJ599
1. Nand Kishore has presented an application under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act against all or any of the respondents for having committed gross contempt of this Court. The four respondents to this application are:(1) Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi; (2) Shri J.N. Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi; (3) Shri S.C. Talwar, Zonal Engineer (Dangerous Buildings), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and (4) Shri S.C. Vaish, Senior Overseer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The short ground on which gross contempt of this Court is stated to have been committed is that in L. P. A. 106 of 1967, a Division Bench of this Court on 9-8-1968, reversed the order of a learned Single Judge, dismissing the applicant's writ petition, and, allowing the writ petition, directed the Municipal Corporation to carry out the demolition of the remaining portion of the house in question as required by Section 348(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, within a reason...
A.N. Jindal Vs. P.L. Chhabra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi291; 1969CriLJ1239; ILR1968Delhi493
ORDER1. Shri A. Jindal, Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, has made a reference under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against Shri P. L. Chhabra, Provincial Transport Controller, Haryana Government, at Chandigarh on the basis of a demi official letter dated 4-4-1968 written by him to Shri C. G. Suri, District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. That letter may appropriately to reproduced in ex-tenso:--'Our General Manager of Haryana Roadways Depto at Gurgaou, Shri B, S. Khurana, has told me that on 14-2-1968 he was summoned to the Court of Shri Jindal, a Magistrate at Delhi, in connection with some cases pending against the drivers of vehicles Nos. PNG-2430, 2440, 2436 and 2149. It appears that these drivers were prosecuted in the year 1903-64 and were summoned on a number of occasions. It is indeed very unfortunate that the drivers concerned have nto put in actual appearance so far. The present General Manager, who has taken over at Gurgaon hardly three month ago, says t...
Daropti Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Simla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT33
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This appeal relates to the construettion of the word 'person' used in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 196l Act). (2) The writ petition was filed by the appellant alleging that the suit land in khasra No. 284 had belonged to respondent No 8 Madan Lal by virtue of a sale dated l4th November,IS53 executed by one Shrimati Murtoo. On the 4th March 1955, by virtue of Section 3 of the Pepsn Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 1954 Act), the said land became vested in the Gram Panchavat respondent No.2, as being incinded in Sharniiat Deh of the village. Subsequentiy. however, the definition of Shamilat Deh was changed by the 1961 Act which repealed the 1954 Act with the result that the suit land ceased to be Shamilat Deh. Sub-section (2) of Section 3, which provided for the disposal of such land, is reproduced below:- '(2)Ntowithstanding anything contained in sub...
P.C. Gulati Vs. Lajya Ram Kapur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi275; ILR1969Delhi277
Jagjit Singh, J.1. In order to appreciate the points involved in this appeal it is necessary to state certain facts.2. On November 14, 1954 a lease-hold cinema plto measuring 5,043.33 square yards, in neighborhood Iii of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was auctioned by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, and was jointly purchased by Partap Chand Gulati, Lajya Ram Kapur and Diwan Chand Kapur. After plans for construction of a cinema house on that plto were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Delhi the parties put into writing 'what had been verbally agreed upon, in the form of an Agreement relating to the above co-ownership'. That agreement was executed on June 5, 1961.3. Unfortunately differences cropped up between the parties when the cinema building was nearing completion. As the agreement entered into between the parties provided, by one of its clauses, for settlement of all disputes by arbitration, Lajya Ram Kapur and his son Diwan Chand Kapur filed an application, u...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »